 Today, we are going to talk about another article in applied ethics called, Real World Justice by a philosopher called Thomas Poggy. These are the details of the article. This is continuing in our foray with applied ethics. As we remember earlier, we had tackled another philosopher delving into applied ethics. Now we have another strain of philosophers in the real world, engaging with conceptual reasons of world poverty in a world with growing average income. So now, this is again, when a philosopher descends from the alleged ivory towers and comes down to engage with the problems of the real world out there. Now, this is quite a passionate plea, but the difference with singer comes out to be this is quite numerically backed up. So it is often that philosophers are blissfully ignorant of empirical happening. So we say in philosophy of mind, doing philosophy of mind without knowledge of the current state of neurosciences. So these all seem to disengage philosophy from the world out there, whereas many philosophers would argue that philosophy is perhaps the most applied discipline, because that is the way you lead your life. This is an example, this article picked up is an example of such a claim. So when Poggi asks philosophers to engage in the debate armed with factual information. So this is kind of a pun, a kind of a critique that well philosophers have always been tangentially distanced from factual information. It has always been about arguments in principle and never about fact. So well here Poggi brings to light a very implicit conflict between ethics and economics and particularly market economics as it is practiced today, and which is a dominant strain of which is almost become the whole of economic thinking today. Economics as a discipline has strongly been influenced by what they called free market economy and market economics. So economic theories are not final, that they are to be what I quote him, he says absorbed with caution. Now today we are used to depending on the experts, we depend on the experts for medical advice, we depend on experts for economic advice, we depend on experts all over. Now why should a government be run by elected politicians? Why not continue with specialists? What are the elected leaders specialists in? If all the decisions are decisions of specialization, what are the elected leaders specialists in? The specialists have no accountability to people per se. So in fact extending to what we talked about in Crito, that well when you want to, so Crito asks you to go to the specialist, when you talk about the gymnast, you go to the expert in gymnast not to people at large. So when you have a medical issue you go to a doctor, when you have, when your country or when your society is facing an economic crisis you go to a specialist. So today our way of understanding the world is very strongly based on specialists and philosophy is the hallmark of the generalistic outlook to life or to the world out there, to knowledge out there. So when we are having an economic problem, we look to the specialists in economics. Yes. I did not get the connection that you made between philosophy and specialization. Now different areas of study specialize in different domains. So when we have Crito, so Crito Socrates himself said that well we need to seek the opinion of the expert. Now what is, a doctor is an expert in medical sciences, economist is an expert in economic troubles. So what is a philosopher expert in? So well philosophy is in contrast to these specializations, philosophy is the hallmark of the generalist. So it is understanding at the broadest level. So that does not make us or does not make philosophers specialists in something. So it is just as, it is a holistic approach. Yes. When you are looking for a solution to a problem, you break down the problem into simple parts and you tackle each problem on its own basis. Now there are specialists for each problem. In fact that brings a critical difference between how traditional Indian systems of medicine viewed the human being versus the western mode of medical treatment, where each human being is broken down into various parallel running systems and organs. And therefore each of which has a specialist and is treated accordingly. But the Indian system or Ayurveda has classically regarded the human being as a whole, to be treated as a whole not as taking care of the parts. Now this is very common to our understanding perhaps in an elaborately segregated and specialized world, we have specialists for every domain. So if there is a problem with the economy, we have to seek an expert, to seek opinion of an economist. You have a problem with the defense of the country, you seek opinion from the general or from the military community. Now Poggy starts here with cautioning that well philosophy to explore assumptions of the prevalent dominant domains of understanding. So what are these prevalent dominant domains of understanding? One of them is well economics and the way the world economic order proceeds. So what sparks the author into this article is well fact number 1 that their income average income of the world is growing and fact number 2 that there is still absolute number of poor people growing with subhuman living also growing. So where can we or what can we make sense of this? So is poverty a moral issue or an economic issue? Now when I talked about governance, why are we based on elected leaders? Then we could actually choose somebody who is specializing in management. Why not let a country run by a corporation? Yes, that why is what is the space for a bureaucrat? What is the space for a generalist? So this is where the author puts in his claim that well the economic theories are not final and they are to be absorbed with caution. So it is not that the generalist can now rest in peace and with the specialist taking over. So somehow to have the big picture and to see how whether poverty is an economic issue or a moral issue, we still need to have the generalist who is who does not readily take in the opinions of the specialist as final. So these are the dominant domains of understanding. The world economic order is one. So if we are looking for a correction of poverty, we need to look to economists or we need to look to leader of people. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible for philosophers to have vested interests and to come up with philosophies that created some limited interests and act against larger interests. So I would disagree with the point that there is something in philosophy that makes it evidently so to go to, that makes it more capable of adding the generalist. Now first it is the author's reaction is perhaps not so much to economics as a discipline but the current economic order which with the dominant economic thinking that is taking place. So you could guess that out from the amount of research funding available to which kind of research projects taken up by the world community at large. So this is where he brings about the point that well it is not that these disciplines or these knowledge outlooks are essentially fraudulent but that is there they can interpret the truth in a way which is suitable to the ruling elite and given why philosophers have to step in or what makes philosophy so perhaps the most suitable discipline for the generalist is because the methodology of philosophy is very varied. We are not dealing with just techniques and tools. So yes there is a philosophical component in every academic pursuit but if we are looking at philosophy as a subject it is the epitome of a generalistic outlook. So whenever you are talking about an egalitarian economics or economics raising questions about very general issues that is mostly the philosophical or the introductory part of economics whereas the trend of specialization tends to limit any discipline to just the tools and techniques used whereas philosophy is perhaps the least affected by this trend for specialization because intrinsically specialization is difficult in philosophy because it raises the broadest questions. To answer the broadest questions you need input from various domains. A simple classic philosophical question is that how I want to live one's life. Now this will invite opinions or invite information and understanding from a wide variety of disciplines right starting from biology to sociology that how should one treat oneself or treat lead one's life. So intrinsically philosophy is more akin to generalist studies in philosophy rather than other disciplines of specialization. Literature of course is one, humanity is in general and philosophy in particular is very strongly generalistic and that is why the amount of information required to make sense at any advanced level of this discipline is much lesser than compared to other disciplines. See if you are trying to understand a medical problem you need to be familiar with the medical vocabulary which before comprehending the problem or you want to understand computer problem or if you want to understand an economic problem you have to understand they have built a lot of axioms on top of the fundamental axioms. Now philosophy deals with very little axioms so that is why people can walk into philosophy from various stages and places in life and that is perhaps the reason why philosophy would be more akin to a generalist understanding because if you take one of the off-debated assumptions of economics, market economics and economics in general of interpreting persons as homo economicus that who single-mindedly and rationally seeks optimally to satisfy his preferences such imaginary creatures are not good approximations of persons in the real world of course that is the author's opinion but the basis of economics more particularly market economics more particularly the dominant strains of economics which uphold the world economic order what this particularly he is bringing to light is what it rule we are making a decision between our preferences these preferences can be outweighed by moral notions which for which is difficult for the economic model to locate to situate that well each one of us have preferences and rationality is in single-mindedly following your order of preferences so if when the moral component enters that well it is almost like a simple paradox that we all do what we want to do that is fairly simple enough and wanting to do what benefits us that we are all selfish people and we want to do what benefits us and avoid what harms us that is the basic assumption what the homo economicus tries to put up now what about the say acts of martyrdom or acts of sacrifice where do we locate that that if we all like the egoist claims that we all function in this rational that let us get as much as what we want so optimally we can we all function selfishly but that is a poor representation of the world because it leaves about that domain where people apparently choose to act in ways that will harm them and perhaps benefit others so this whole notion of martyrdom or of sacrifice is contradicting so this homo economicus assumption of homo economicus rules out that possibility of sacrifice in fact would consider sacrifice as irrational especially if that sacrifices at the cost of one's the agent's own self so that is what now the entire economic model the current world economic order that is built according to the author is assuming this as the fundamental understanding of human beings if there is an axiomatic error in the axiom of say homo economicus here then of course the model that is built on such an axiom will definitely be far from a real representation of the world out there so that is what the author puts out that such imaginary creatures are not good approximations of persons in the real world so popularity of certain methodologies of studies may be to the fact that they are supportive rather than subversive of the position and policies of those in power so this is almost what you raised about political interests that well why are certain methodologies more popular certain discipline certain ways of understanding say if I can quote an example simplistic understanding of left oriented economics is on the decline and market oriented economics is funded is better funded and therefore is flourishing much more than say 20 30 years back in even in our country so even in India now you find that economic thinking takes directions so whether research and the advancement of knowledge is as innocent as we would like it to be or is it shaped by interests which require a particular methodology to flourish so if we are talking about these methodologies which are supportive rather than subversive of the position and policy of policies of those in power let me quote an example say in the 1990s when there was this era of liberalization in India that is when governance required a more solid input from the market understanding or from the economic understanding of the world economic order than the requirement of the local people or the people from whom the government was elected so it was then then economist was take the economist who claim to understand the world economic order said that well this is a right decision if we open up our boundaries and this was an decision from the dominant economic thinking at that time and because it opened up and that was a political decision the economy opened up now this opening up again started influencing the kind of economics being done so understanding the world economic order and how best we could benefit from it became the dominant methodologies of studies and it seems to be that the author points out that there is a kind of a implicit hand in glove arrangement that well the kind of results that could support a governing class seem to encourage the thinking class to think in or interpret or think in such a manner that would endorse the governance of the governing class. So that it is a very deep and a politically charged claim that this philosopher here is making and note that he is coming from a rich developed country and then this is going to be immensely unpopular as a view of the amongst the dominant view in his context. Well here of course implicitly he is referring to the strain of economics that studies or that endorses the world economic order or free market. Is he talking about that our economy based on the philanthropic approach rather than the egoistic approach. Now in fact he is saying that the world economic order is based on the egoistic approach of all that there is no in fact he goes ahead to talk about philanthropy and what makes philanthropy really philanthropic and what makes it as an act of reparation perhaps in one of the coming slides we will talk about it shall we proceed. I am wondering if the ruling class is the political ruling class is always in need of the economic elite of the country or can we imagine a scenario where they do not get a role as in the scenario then we can also imagine thinkers who engage in that does not promote the interest of the ruling class because they would receive support for their research from the economic elite. Yes so in fact the immediate example that comes to my mind is in fact in the Indian historical tradition the learning or the learned class where supposed to survive on the dole of the majority of the society not a direct funding from the ruling class and therefore if I historically Chanakya was an example of an evidence of a thinking class that did not get along with the ruling class and therefore in fact the duty of the thinking class is to speak truth to power. So if the ruling if the thinking class is on the payroll of the ruling class it is almost like an financial collusion and it is very difficult to for one class to oppose the other. So yes in fact the author here is critiquing the world economic order the economic system that we have come across where we find such a strong link up between governing class and ruling class that between the ruling class and the thinking class that we find that the ruling class supporting and therefore those elements in the thinking class that provide justification to the ruling class and therefore it almost starts as an collusion. So the evidence of it is in from various disciplines so even from he talks about and it is a general talk about patents and trade agreements these are these all a kind of an implicit cohort between the thinking class and the ruling class. So the thinking class has to get away from the domain of it is nothing so specialized that we are incapable of comprehending it on making sense of it or having an opinion on it. So it is not that the rule leaders should always look on to the specialist. So yes I can think of one example in Indian history where it did not get along well and therefore traditionally the thinking class has been even in the Greek tradition be it Socrates or Plato has been exhibiting dissent with the ruling class. So whether it was capital punishment of Socrates or the change of empire of to Chandragupth Moria both of these are examples where the ruling class interferes or with the thinking class interferes with the ruling class. So if the institutions in which they work the academic institutions had more independent sources of income funding it is because they depend on the economic ruling elite or their economic. That is true in fact this is actually a stronger critique of education systems in the western world where unlike India where educational institutions are fully funded by private entities. So it we find philanthropic and major contributions happening from industrial classes to educational institutions and in a way implicitly this puts pressure on the line and direction of research that the thinking class will take. So perhaps author argues for or suggests or implicitly suggests class where in the typical Indian scenario where the government buffers this influence between the cloud of ruling class and makes it a systematic buffer that it is not a direct ratio direct relation of benefitting. So to keep the thinking class neutral that way. But the government ruling class itself can be a source of pressure on the thinking class. So even when the government is the funder we cannot assume that the thinking class works independently. Okay now that was the difference between the constitution of a government and the working of a corporation. So in the in any government setup the constitution of the government is so rigid and fixed that it is not fluid enough to allow the influence of the say the premier to percolate into the thinking class because it is buffered by a very strong mechanism legal mechanism that a fictional entity is created as a government from whom the premier is or the ruling class only gets the authority to manage this. But it cannot fundamentally change the frozen rules which is possible in if it is a more flexible corporately funded unit. So the stability or the robustness of governmental intermediary is perhaps much higher than the flexibility and efficiency of a corporate structure. So okay coming back here so when the author says that we cannot just learn and benefit from the theories of experts. We must think for ourselves and as best as we can become experts. So that is a crucial thing that well can be as philosophers or as human beings not specially trained for any particular discipline have an opinion on say any macro economic or any macro level policy that is being made. So if I need to know whether liberalization has done good to India or not done bad to India do I need to go back to an economic expert to find that out or do I can I find that out on my own. Now here the author's claim is that well we are alive enough and we are capable enough and the data is innocent enough to not to be contaminated by the theories of experts which are between information and policies. So increasingly policy decisions which come from an elaborate backing of expert laden theories seem to have more credibility that is what the author is questioning here that well as a citizen of this country you are capable of comprehending or as a citizen of the world you are capable of comprehending what the world economic order is all about only you have to. Both people they can like they don't have any much more idea about the economical things and other things. How can they will be think that I can do that it is very difficult for them to justify his or her own knowledge also. In that case we can say that we can think for ourselves. Everybody has that capacity but we need some like resources otherwise how can we say that yeah there is no need of expert. At least even if we are talking about educated people still they are going like I am going to the expert and they are asking me about the for the merits and dividends. Because at least we want to know the exact point where we can establish ourselves. So in that case I think we need both at a time like we need we have to improve our own knowledge to become a expert and we need also an expert. Well let me think of an analogy let us say having an opinion if following newspaper editorials. Now these are experts who are writing for the generalist to have a comprehensive view. So we do need experts to give opinions and but those opinions are not taken for granted ultimately we are in the judgment seat one. And two is the point you raise is actually the issue that the author raises elsewhere in the article that well the level of poverty and inequality can sometimes be so much that even the basics subsistence required to think, to debate, to argue and to take a decision seem to be lacking. So categorically say underdeveloped countries are marked by an almost dwindled middle class to a large number of lower income group who would not even be willing to debate or comprehend the macro issues. So with an increase of the middle class so the number of people who are able to have an opinion about macro issues grows as the world or the nation develops. So the author is trying to point that out that well perhaps the world economic order is in such a way that this inequality continues to expand and this who are at the bottom end of this inequality are almost condemned to stay there with no internal movement between the layers of the economy. So well then he is talking about well that is why the generalist needs to return which is epitomized by the philosophical outlook definitely not by philosophers alone but by a very generalistic outlook that well we can understand the world order without banking only upon the opinion of the specialist there. Do we differ on this or please opine what do you . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . relying on testimony, relying on the testimony of the expert. So, this is not necessarily a battle between philosophy and economics, but a battle between specialization and generalization, that well. So, we are talking about the philosophical outlook or generality, is there talking about that everybody has the equal rise to say something, they are giving the equal equality in one sense. Well, perhaps what can be read into it is that everybody has the capacity to opine, that the non-specialist or the non-expert is not imperviously isolated from the knowledge or the thinking of the expert, that well wherever that the expert cannot hide behind a garb of numbers and make a policy claim which the non-expert has to handle at face value, right. So, yeah. We all need to engage with whatever data expert is with being empirically informed when we do that and think for oneself. So, I think as I see it the point that he is trying to make is as far as things that are concerned all of us in our day to day socio-political existence is concerned, we are not completely ignorant of them and because the things that are being discussed are all around us and we engage with them and we have a practical understanding of them. And I do not think he is talking about theories of what is going on at the atomic or sub-atomic levels, he is not talking about such very specialized theories, he is talking about economics and although some would argue that economics also deals with really abstract specialized stuff that. The classic divide between micro-economics and macro-economics. But the issue of poverty is an issue that but so pervasive and so obviously present in the world. Not possibly argue that non-experts cannot have a sea of it. But you know I think what he is saying is that he is not making a case against the experts. Experts may go on with their work but we should always be aware, we the audience of the knowledge produced by the experts should always be aware that ideology can creep into any area of work and even the experts may be ideologically biased in their so called disinterested enquiry. So when we receive what they put out in the world we should look at it critically using our own critical faculties and make our own judgments. Right. So it says when we read a newspaper, when we read editorials in a newspaper, it is true that the people writing them are more informed in some ways and they express things more articulately but of course they have their own ideology. So when we read those editorials we have to read them with a pinch of salt and not take everything that they see at the face factor. You know you seem to be saying that any expert is necessarily limited by the narrowness of their field, the narrowness of their approach and in order to go beyond that narrowness we need to adopt the generalist approach. Is that what you are saying? No, no not exactly that all experts are confined to the narrowness of their approach. Of course they are heavily influenced by the tools and techniques that they use. So building an economic model with the basis as homo economicus makes the model may be sharp and accurate but the axiom on which it stands leaves a little or ignores a little leeway of the idea of self sacrifice and that could make a clear distinction at the level of the model. However the model by itself would be accurate and as it is but yes so it is not that because this is just the prelude to the claim he makes. In fact this article is a response to the criticism he has received on his book on real world and poverty. So that is where he being a non-economist also has tried to understand applied training in ethics he has had and put forth an alternative view as how poverty can be eliminated. So it is not only in the domain of specialized experts from a particular methodology of thinking who can best answer the question how to eliminate poverty. This is an example of a generalist who has accumulated or is empirically informed and suggests an alternative to poverty eradication on the world. He finds something erroneous with the world economic order and that he says can be only brought to light if the generalists take a look at the world economic order and understand its intentions and motives behind it. So the simple question. You also include the general public. Yes absolutely in fact the generalist outlook is about the thinking people. So it is if I am incorrect if I have put in the impression that I only mean people trained in philosophy definitely no. It is about the basic human ability of reasoning and of comprehending a situation and making a judgment on it. He is trying to connect or trying to make a harmony between generalistic and experts or he totally like overlook the experts rather than. He is well to put it this way he is demoting the experts. That well they are not at a god like testimony level as perhaps today we tend to treat them or the world order tends to treat them. For an example of climate change. So in that case we do not need generosity we need an expert. So in that case how can we apply like this can be applicable in that case. Ok very interesting now. In what case climate change? Climate change. Is climate change or how we understand climate change. Now that is surprising that if you delve deep into scientific literature about climate change there are very documented strongly justified scientific theories claiming that well there is no climate change taking place. So there are countries who are not signing into that protocol. So how the conclusion you want evidence can very often be manufactured with it. And therefore facts alone perhaps I can read into this that facts alone do not lead you to a decision and that is where the generalist who has to enter to bring in a value fact combined understanding of the situation. So even something like climate change is it is not a clearly resolved issue and we can know as much there is to know about it and have an opinion about it or think about an alternative to it. So there is disparate data coming in from scientific communities about the same issue. So it has to be decided at the political level and that political level is the interface of the generalist with the specialist. It is not that the specialists are taking the decisions. It is still that the specialists take inform the generalist to influence their decision. But perhaps the author is against this generalist becoming just an intermediary for the apparently justified opinion of the specialist into becoming a policy. So well the question that the author tackles is a very simple and perennial issue that plagues us all and for quite some time that poverty in the world what causes poverty and why does it still exist. Now that is a very simple and almost such a common accompaniment to human existence in the recent centuries that it does not seem to provoke that much of reaction that it ought to. So the one way of understanding world poverty has been as he paraphrases works from development economics is that it is just local factors as many methodologies by which he would mean some of the dominant strains of development economics. Analyze or is it the big picture that can explain this phenomenon. A huge economic impact of the world economic order on the incidence of poverty worldwide. So development economics in the sense would see quotes Amartya Sainz works too that it is the socio-cultural effect and the attitudes to gender, the cultural baggage that is carried on in a community that results in that poverty and perhaps poor governance in that area. So that has been the development dominant development thinking for quite some time. Now the author puts a very profound challenge to this kind of claim that well the solutions are local that no perhaps something in the big picture in the macro order in the world economic order influences poverty worldwide. So just some stray examples that occur to me is that well see the economic system is brings prosperity more to a certain region in a country and brings less prosperity to a certain region in the world. So is it just the influence of local factors or the big system that is being fit which may be more compliant to one local system and may not be compliant to another local system. The classic example we have of governance now if we import a system of governance into a society which is for which the system of governance is foreign. Let us take concrete examples. Let us say the western mode of governance entering rural area. Now the western mode of governance is based on very strong individualistic status of the citizens. Whereas in larger parts of not just India but Asian countries, communities functions and take decisions as unitary entities. So models or a large or a model that worked in the western scenario need not be successful here and it may be varyingly successful in different parts of Asia depending on the local culture. So there is something also in the model itself which is intrinsically favours certain attitudes and people and this favours or presents disadvantage to certain people and attitude. So that is what this author is hinting at that well the world economic order is also responsible for this incidence of poverty worldwide. So he goes on to put in a very direct accusing claim that the more advantaged citizens of the affluent countries are actively responsible for most of the life threatening poverty in the world. So for this of course he does his ground work and in his book he has presented the data in general considering his area or his domain of study has been 15 years post the Cold War period and a death toll of 27 crore human beings in this period. So many experts have put in that we are better off from their past. Poggy questions that well that that is immaterial that such penury exists that is the problem it is not that it is less than the past. We are better off in terms of percentages but not in terms of absolute numbers. Absolute numbers so that matters a lot say that is the folly of percentages how data is not as innocent perhaps as many of us might tend to think. So a simple growth in reduction in poverty as percentage does not represent a reduction in poverty in absolute numbers. So how quantification is made can be can indicate either way. So what we are seeing is that converting or quantifying information does not necessarily be value neutral. So it is not as we would like a system based on fact we would function in more or less a positivistic system today where we want as little contamination from subjectivity as possible. But the author rightly brings to light that well even the most sophisticated quantification also represents the value input of the quantifier. So yes. You mean fantastic increase in inequality. Oh sorry it means fantastic increase in equal. Well so severe poverty is entirely avoidable now engaging with empirical data available to the author. He brings out he makes this claim that well this poverty can be eradicated but it is not because there is a fantastic rate or increase in the rate of inequality that the world may be growing well there. But the wealthy are growing well there and the poor are going poor. That is a common concern raised at various quarters. So to quote him he says that well my main claim is that is then that by shaping and enforcing social conditions that forcibly and avoidably cause the monumental suffering of global poverty. We are harming the global poor or to put it more descriptively we are active participants in the largest though not the gravest crime against humanity ever committed. So here the main claim that Poggy is making is that we are actually and by we he means the citizens of the developed country and in later he does also include the socio economic and political elite of the developing or under developed nations too. So basically the yes. He is addressing the affluent citizens not all of them I think. Yes the affluent citizens the rich nation yes okay. But being part of the country in fact this again brings to my mind the claim that Socrates made in Crito that if we are part of a system so we are and we do not protest against it we are implicitly giving our consent to it. So being a part of the because mostly the world economic order is being shaped by rich countries. So being a part of this well the cloud of nations and being a citizen of these well the cloud of nations and not raising a voice against the system is in implicit and granting consent to this system to prosper and flourish. So the way the author puts it is that this is as almost like a genocide only it takes place in a very staggered and systemic manner with no accountability at any level. So he relabels this as the failure to aid and protect and that is relabeled as harm. So he makes a very classic distinction between positive and negative duties that how this is like he let us go to the next slide that will perhaps bring it out yes. So how existing world poverty manifests a violation of our negative duties that is our duties not to harm. So positive duties are not tackled here positive duties require one to do something negative duties require one not to create harm. So the example that it gives is quite explains it very lucidly that the duty not to assault people is more stringent than the duty to prevent such assaults by others. And having assaulted another the attacker has more reason to ensure that his victims injuries are treated than a bystander would. So what it means is that well he attacks this notion that even implicitly Singer talked about in his article of famine affluence and morality that well we may be at peace that or the affluent let us understand the affluent as affluent across nations because people who are in positions or who to make even noise if not effect a policy change make noise about the subscription to macro level policies. So even if we are not preventing harm that we ought to prevent harm to others. So this non protest against macroeconomic policies is actually harming proactively and not that we are standing as a bystander and seeing harm happen. So he shifts the liability of the world poverty on developing nations via the and on developed nations and the elite of the developing nations which allow these world economic policies to prosper. So it is not that the world bodies do an act of charity when he gives the example of an industry which is polluting a river and then makes grants for studying pollution or reducing pollution that is no more to be seen as a charity and what Pohi here sees that the world community doing by making these huge aids and donations it is just a minor what it seems to be calling philanthropy and charity is almost is not even the minimum expected for as duties of reparation for the harm that has already been done. So he takes this negative duty in the strongest sense yes. Singer does is redefine the notion of charity as a positive duty if I understand it correctly and what he does is take us beyond the notion of positive duties to that is the intermediate duties which he argues almost right that is duties of reparation that it is not a favor not an act of charity but it is almost a loan that one has to repay that in fact we raise that question whether because this loan or this moral loan has been taken by generations before. So we already have enough philosophical issues about moral accountability over a lifetime. So this is asking for moral accountability over generations. So what the colonizers have taken away centuries from today do the successors of the colonizers owe that back to the colonized yes ex colonized. So that is the question that he takes for granted but that has also been places where this has been critiqued that well can we at all start a fresh when not considering what is the historical situation of it. So he regards these duties of reparation much stronger than charity so it is that the wealthier nations and the world economic order needs to be changed. So as to fulfill its negative duty is duty of reparation to because this sustains the inequality this macro world order that is there it benefits and perpetuates from the current inequality. So world economic order needs to be changed which would so the fault or the defect is in the macro level order in tackling poverty. So let us think of an example yes or world economic order think of a local example where a macro policy influence