 We had talked about some of the sections of the paper, and now we will engage with, we talked about, well, the ecumenical nature of Poggy's claims that, well, it cuts across theories, it is anti-reductionist, so it talks, it does not put in alliance with any particular theory, rather it tries to ecumenically or Catholic, in a Catholic spirit tackle the various objections raised, and therefore, not bound by a particular theory. Now, going ahead with his, what he terms as his ecumenical approach, he engages broadly with consequentialist conceptions of social justice, so that there can be various strains of consequentialist theories regarding social justice. So, he asks for a very, in his words, a very minimal requirement, which is common to perhaps most if not all consequentialist conceptions of social justice. He reads that, I quote from him that, there is a shared institutional order that is shaped by the better of, and imposed on the worse of. This institutional order is implicated in the reproduction of radical inequality, in that there is a feasible institutional alternative, under which so severe and extensive poverty would not persist. The radical inequality cannot be traced to extra social factors, such as genetic handicaps or natural disasters, which as such affect different human beings differentially. Now, this is quoted from his book, and also from the article that we are currently going through. So, his claim is that well, how the world order benefits the better of at the cost of the worse of, and what he eliminates here, in this point if you read, is that if there is an alternative order, then this poverty would not be so severe, and would not persist. And for those who would like to argue, or who have, because this paper is in response to the criticism that he is received against the theories put in his book. So, one of those, some of those criticisms were that the radical inequality cannot be traced to extra social factors, such as genetic handicaps or natural disasters, which as such affect different human beings differentially. So, poverty is not an effect, in which the affluent are innocent bystanders, or neither is it a result of chance, or genetic handicaps or natural disasters. It is to Poggy's reading very strictly a result of the institutional order, which the global institutional order, which is benefits the better of and is implicitly upheld by the better of. So, very clearly he puts forth the claim that the better of are harming the worse of, in upholding a shared institutional order that is unjust and avoidably producing or reproducing radical inequality. So, this is a very crucial reiteration of his claim that the better of are harming the worse of. Now, notice the words used that when he says in upholding, what is he denying over here? He is denying that well the institutional order are not parallel orders running in different countries or regions, that the poor and the rich are a part of an institutional order. If there is a macro level to talk about, that there are not various micro levels running and parallel to each other unaffected with each other. His claim when he says that a shared institutional order is that there is a single macro order of which these are facets. And that macro order is unjust, that is a claim that he is made and we talked about historical wrongdoing and how it translates or it carries forward across generations. And therefore, it brings forth duties of reparation and avoidably, so this single macro order that is unjust and it avoidably reproduces, produces or reproduces radical inequality. It is avoidable that means a tweaking in the global institutional order can avoid this poverty. And this recurrence of poverty both in earlier times and new his prediction reading here is that this will continue creating poverty. So, this production and reproduction of radical inequality will continue if this institutional economic order is to continue. So, what is it about the consequentialist theories here? So, Poggy's minimum claim from the consequentialist theories is that he sums it up saying that most broadly consequentialist theories, theorists agree that a national economic order is unjust when it leaves social and economic human rights unfulfilled on a massive scale even while there is a feasible alternative order under which these human rights would be much better realized. So, what consequentialists are judging and a system by the consequences it brings forth. So, a clarion called to the various strains of consequentialist is that well what Poggy is asking for that well what is perhaps the minimum common among the various consequentialist theories that any system it brings about any system is unjust when it leaves social and economic human rights unfulfilled on a massive scale even while there is a feasible alternative under which these human rights would be much better realized. Now, I would read into this that well when he crucially mentions that while there is a feasible alternative this is a almost an attack to the against the consequentialist theories that go about claiming that there is no alternative. So, that world poverty takes place because there is no alternative or any frequent consequentialist justification does claim that well there is no alternative and therefore we need to take this particular step. So, this claim that there is no alternative this is a frequent consequentialist justification now this is what he is going he is trying to because he is engaging the consequentialist he is saying that there is a possible alternative order in which these human rights would be much better realized. So, the classical consequentialist justification has been that there is no alternative be it utilitarian or any strain of utilitarians that there is no alternative therefore we stick to the decision that we have to take. So, this justification that there is no alternative does not hold in this case because he is that is why categorically perhaps putting forth this condition that there is a feasible alternative under which these human rights would be much better realized. Is there any comment that you would like to engage in this slide now an institutional order is human rights violating when it forcibly gives rise to greater insecurity in access to the objects of human rights physical integrity freedom of movement adequate nutrition etcetera than would be reasonably avoidable through an alternative feasible institutional design. So, here Poggy is trying to put out that well what is required what are the consequences required from a fairly good institutional order well it should guarantee the minimum rights which it codifies physical integrity freedom of movement adequate nutrition etcetera. In an institutional order that is human rights violating so the author reads the current global institutional order as human rights violating because it does not bring about these minimum human essentials which to his understanding is very much feasible in an alternative institutional design. So, moral claim on institutionals on institutions translate into moral claim on individuals designing and upholding them no institutional escape now this is a very relevant applied issue that the author talks about is that when we have we frequently seen cases that well individuals throwing up their hand and claiming that well we cannot do anything that we do not require any response that we cannot do anything because it is a part of a system. Now the author here is breaking that chain he is trying to say that well the moment you are a part of a system you are upholding the system and therefore even if there is any moral wrongdoing on part of the system the individuals upholding them do not get any leeway for that system. So, the frequently given excuse that it is a part of a system and that the individual is cannot help it cannot do anything that is where in fact just as Socrates does in Crito preempting civil disobedience that well when we follow or uphold an institutional order we are we also inherit the moral qualities of the institutional order. Ultimately pegging moral responsibility on individuals rather than on systems because perhaps going ahead a convenient way of evasion of moral responsibility comes in the invention of this entity called a corporation which has all legal rights of a person but nowhere a moral claim or a moral responsibility to the corporation. So that is where this Poggi makes a very interesting and very relevant interjection that when people tend to give an excuse that it is a part of a policy and there is nothing that can be done about it well they are not absolved of moral responsibility of making such a claim because by upholding the very system they are responsible for the moral stand of the system. So, there is no escape in obfuscating moral agency into institutional or organizational level. So, Poggi starts to see he is particularly done this work considering a period post 1990s the 15 year period from 1990 to till date and there he finds the genesis of a new world economic order evolving in the 1990s. Now this he goes on to empirically show in his book that how this evolving world economic order since the 1990s is structurally flawed and morally wrong that it shall always remain it should it will always bring about poverty and achieving equality in such an institutional order is almost impossible. So there have been critics who have attacked his above his usage of human rights violation which he mentions as when the institutional order does not provide the minimum essentials or promotes in the first bullet when we talk about that it forcibly gives rise to greater insecurity in access to the objects of human rights. So an institutional order is human rights violating when it forcibly gives rise to greater insecurity in access to the objects of human rights. So this term of human rights violation has again been objected to by critics that well this is perhaps lowering down the definition of human rights violation. So the critics have attacked that well if not being able to give rights is human rights violation then how would you perhaps term human rights violation which are like torture and war crimes which are perhaps more active than passive. So this is of course almost a nomological clarification that the author makes that considering the passive active distinction that the human right violation by not providing the minimum essentials can be termed as passive and therefore he re-christens them as official disrespect for human rights but not as human rights violation. However that does not majorly affect the spirit of his argument and this is perhaps just as a passing retort to one of the critics. So now coming to the penultimate section of the article he talks about the causal role of global institutional order in the reproduction of severe poverty. So we see a structure how a philosopher engages with a topic in applied ethics. So he first brings about the problem that how there can be a different situation and how it is responsible and now towards the end he is coming out to give the details of the what exactly in the global institutional order causes this reproduction of severe poverty and he ends by proposing the solution. So and in fact he has gone ahead in acting and making a difference to the world out there and not limiting this to an academic intellectual intercourse. So how he analyzes this causal role of the global institutional order in the reproduction of severe poverty well his tirade or his disagreement is primarily with development economists a strain of them who allege that the incompetence, operation and corruption prevalent in poor countries is responsible for the severe poverty not the global institutional order. So this is a fundamental world view a difference in approach that the author takes compared to the prevalent anti-poverty brigade today. So the dominant world view on eradication of poverty would like to hold local or national incompetence operation and corruption in poor countries as responsible for this severe poverty but and not the global institutional order as the author accuses. To this the author is loyal to his stand of course and he talks about local factors and global factors but he sees their relation and not as not additive but as multiplicative. So the global order multiplies or aggravates the development of local inefficiencies. So it is a factor that we can almost look around and relate to say in the Indian scenario why is there corruption in the electoral system? Why is the ability as we talked about earlier the ability to spend money crucial in winning an election and thereby causing a vicious cycle for collection of money to win the next election and therefore putting the leaders or the politicians in a vicious cycle of corruption. So this according to the author is an effect of the global system which aggravates the corruption at the local level. So whereas development economists would like to see a failure in governance as responsible for poverty but what the author would like to emphasize is that it is the macro or the global institutional order that the imposition of a western model of democracy in the Indian scenario where thinking for the still continues largely at the communitarian level rather than at the individual level. So having small pockets of self governing entities like the panchayats what Gandhi dreamt of versus a massive impersonal governmental massive impersonal government. So how these macro systems influence or aggravate the problems of inefficiency and corruption and incompetence in poor countries. In fact it goes on to give in the examples of Africa and Africa countries of Africa would very well fit in over here because we find that how does the world order which is in need of say natural raw material which is available in these nations deal with these nations to buy them up. So the moment one the macro order recognizes a ruling entity and gives legitimacy to that ruling entity of a nation it perhaps influences that ruling entity to oppress or to be corrupt to continue having that recognition of being a ruling entity. So these macro factors influence or aggravate the inefficiencies and incompetence and corruption at the local levels. So the author in a way is giving a clean chit to the inefficiencies and incompetencies at the local level. So the development economics suggests a change from reforming local order. The author on the other hand is arguing for a top down approach not a bottom up approach as the development economists would suggest. So he gives this analogy of two factories releasing toxins into river and the cumulative effect exceeds the simple addition. So it is not a simple addition when he talks about local and global factors that the global factors aggravate the local inefficiencies and therefore the entire situation becomes multiplicative of inefficiencies rather than a simple additive of inefficiencies. Is there anything that we would like to question over here? This analogy if you are familiar if you have read in the article it talks about two factories which are polluting releasing toxins into a river and down below these toxins interact and bring about much more pollution than they would have when caused individually. So the effect downstream of this pollution of these two factories is not just a simple addition of what factory A and factory B are polluting but because they together they cause much more harm. In fact say if factory A let me make it simpler say if factory A effluents of factory A kills all the plant products in the river. The pollutants of factory B damages all the animal products in the river now where they polluting in two different rivers there would still be a kind of a still rejuvenating system possible. But if they are polluting into the same river because the flora and the fauna interact to keep the system clean. Now if they are both polluting into the same river it would definitely be a lethal combination that would cause much more harm it would almost make it a dead river with no scope of regeneration. So this is an analogy in fact he uses analogy is a very powerful tool of demonstration of proof very frequently used in Indian philosophy and not very popular in the western tradition because analogy also has its weaknesses where the similarity between what are compared analogically may not be very sharp. So but here he does take an example of an analogy to elaborate his difference between the local and the global factors and how they interact or interact with each other to create much bigger harm however the bulk of the responsibility still remains with the global factors to the authors claim is that shall we proceed. So here he comes to the end and he talks about solutions he talks about change in international property rights in fact this is he goes on he is currently founding working on the foundation of a health impact fund and to re-channelize investment in pharmaceutical industry from more affluent markets to more necessary diseases that need to be tackled but do not generate so much of revenue. But that is of course the details of his empirical work but this is now a classic example of a work in applied ethics where we find a philosopher puts forth his claims uses his philosophical prowess tackles the established world order challenges us to think for ourselves and not rely on the claims of the specialist and thereof he arrives at an alternative world order or an world order that can be modified to eradicate problems that we are facing to eradicate these problems in the time that we are living in. So perhaps there is a call for individuals for generalists or people to think about systems and see that many of the follies that we face are institutional side effects and perhaps the solution is not within the system and the system needs to be tinkered to bring about a solution. So this is a classical case of an active philosopher who is in fact has been working in the area of applied ethics and in departments of applied ethics to bring about a real change in the world. So this is for many of the critics who find that well where does philosophy or theorizing connect with the world out there this is a clear example of where it has. So this is an example of how an idea can shake up the world of ideas and start translating itself into the world of reality or practicality in the same life. So any comments or anything about the paper that you would like to talk about?