1
00:00:01,090 --> 00:00:06,550
Well, okay, let's start the last session of the day with a quick introduction by the author of the paper.

2
00:00:07,900 --> 00:00:14,590
Okay, I should start by thanking the organisers for giving me this opportunity to present this paper,

3
00:00:14,590 --> 00:00:20,710
but actually to write it and certainly this message that I have.

4
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:28,990
So we had 5 minutes for apologies and for the brief presentation, so I should start for apologising for all I've done wrong.

5
00:00:29,790 --> 00:00:38,580
And, and then we're going to apologise now.

6
00:00:38,590 --> 00:00:46,030
So. So just a short presentation and I'll just give you two pieces of information.

7
00:00:47,260 --> 00:00:51,610
The first piece of information is for those of you who don't like my conclusion.

8
00:00:51,610 --> 00:00:57,720
And the second piece of information is for those of you who think you don't like my conclusion, but actually do.

9
00:00:58,700 --> 00:01:02,380
So the first piece of information, that's just the structure of my argument.

10
00:01:02,390 --> 00:01:07,270
So if I'm right that the conclusion follows from the fourth, for instance,

11
00:01:07,780 --> 00:01:13,720
you know that if you don't like the conclusion, you should reject one of the premises of the argument.

12
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:29,740
So for instance, you might deny that we you might deny that it would actually be permissible for poor people to wage war on us if we were,

13
00:01:29,860 --> 00:01:37,050
that is, rich people killing 18 million of them a year by military neutral.

14
00:01:37,060 --> 00:01:48,100
You might deny that we would be liable to a military attack. Second, you might deny that the foreign policy analysis of global poverty is right.

15
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:54,040
Then we kill 18 million people per year by imposing an unjust global structure on them.

16
00:01:54,790 --> 00:02:02,440
And that put this slightly humorous remark and based to this premise I can read even what is not explicitly written.

17
00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:07,360
It doesn't explicitly write anywhere that we kill poor people in the Third World.

18
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:11,229
But I think I find it's hard to see how we could deny it,

19
00:02:11,230 --> 00:02:17,740
given what he writes about our imposing an unjust structure on them and thereby making them die.

20
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:22,180
Third premise policy analysis is correct.

21
00:02:23,890 --> 00:02:28,030
I'm going to assume this so I won't defend his analysis.

22
00:02:28,690 --> 00:02:33,009
And fourth premise there's no relevant, morally relevant difference between our killing.

23
00:02:33,010 --> 00:02:39,580
Pakistan's 18 million poor people each year through military means alone do so by imposing an unjust global structure.

24
00:02:40,180 --> 00:02:44,770
And that's actually a claim that I defend in the paper.

25
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:48,940
So this is what I argued and this was.

26
00:02:49,150 --> 00:02:56,440
So here's a piece of information for those of you who might think you don't like my conclusion, but actually do so.

27
00:02:56,890 --> 00:03:02,480
Three things. I do not argue. I do not argue that the first and the third premise is correct.

28
00:03:03,730 --> 00:03:07,990
I shouldn't hide too much behind that because I actually think that the first premise of the argument is correct.

29
00:03:07,990 --> 00:03:10,990
But I don't offer you if any one of you is a pacifist.

30
00:03:10,990 --> 00:03:20,530
I do not offer you any evidence in this paper. I am simply assuming that there is there could be a military confrontation between rich

31
00:03:20,530 --> 00:03:25,450
and poor countries in which countries who were killing 18 million poor people a year.

32
00:03:25,450 --> 00:03:30,130
And then it would be permissible for poor people of poor countries to fight back.

33
00:03:30,490 --> 00:03:34,240
We would we would be liable to attack by them.

34
00:03:36,190 --> 00:03:43,150
With regard to Pakistan's analysis of global poverty, I'm less certain that it is actually a correct analysis.

35
00:03:43,540 --> 00:03:53,230
So is a very simple minded thought. A lot of poor people in the world live, or at least used to live in China and India.

36
00:03:53,500 --> 00:04:01,060
And it's true of neither China or India that any of those mechanisms set pocket points to dictators

37
00:04:01,420 --> 00:04:08,260
taking over from democratically run governments in order to set up the natural resources of the country.

38
00:04:08,980 --> 00:04:12,990
That this can have been said to course the poverty, those two countries.

39
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:18,069
And given this allowed, given that a large proportion of the world's poor live in those two countries,

40
00:04:18,070 --> 00:04:21,040
I think that's at least an issue that he has to address.

41
00:04:22,150 --> 00:04:28,170
The reason I don't think it might be such a big problem for my argument is that even if we don't kill 18 million poor people a year,

42
00:04:28,180 --> 00:04:33,100
if we kill 9 million people a year, that's pretty many people as well.

43
00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:36,130
So that's the first thing I don't argue.

44
00:04:38,500 --> 00:04:46,299
So the second thing I don't argue is that it is permissible for poor people to kill people under circumstances under which it

45
00:04:46,300 --> 00:04:53,650
would not be permissible to kill them in the compound for each million deaths a year as a result of military aggression scenario.

46
00:04:55,410 --> 00:05:03,660
So the outcome that make here is compatible with having implausibly strong views on civilian immunity.

47
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:16,620
So if you think that that even in war are very strong civilians have very strong immunity to the military, then you can put that into the argument.

48
00:05:16,890 --> 00:05:25,440
And rather than be making the same claim with regard to the situation of killing poor people in the poverty scenario.

49
00:05:26,770 --> 00:05:32,020
And finally, I do not claim that the premise is strictly true.

50
00:05:32,020 --> 00:05:42,729
I do mention some ways in which the way in which we harm poor people by violating the negative rights are different from

51
00:05:42,730 --> 00:05:50,140
the standard type of cases of violating people's negative rights in the pocket scenario that might have more significance.

52
00:05:50,800 --> 00:05:59,140
The reason I'm not overly worried about this is that I think that even if we allow that, there are various ways of violating people's negative rights,

53
00:06:01,570 --> 00:06:08,110
the difference is that the way in which we violate poor people's negative rights,

54
00:06:08,890 --> 00:06:15,710
even though they are less morally problematic than paradigmatic cases of violating people's negative rights.

55
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:21,820
The difference is so huge that it will rule out the possibility of just redistributing wealth.

56
00:06:22,420 --> 00:06:25,710
So that a. Thank you.

57
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:32,820
I'm just going to start very briefly by summarising what I think Casper's two main claims.

58
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:35,160
So the first claim is a conditional claim,

59
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:43,470
and it says that if it is true that we contribute to bringing about the deaths of millions of poor people because we impose an unjust system,

60
00:06:43,620 --> 00:06:49,290
global institutional system on them, then we are liable to be attacked by them.

61
00:06:49,590 --> 00:06:55,150
And this means that it wouldn't be wrong for them to attack us. This particular claim about liability.

62
00:06:55,170 --> 00:06:55,469
Again,

63
00:06:55,470 --> 00:07:04,260
if I'm right and understand the argument is to be distinguished from a claim about an overall permissibility of a war of the poor against the rich.

64
00:07:04,590 --> 00:07:09,060
Because it might be that, given the particular circumstances in which this war would occur,

65
00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:15,870
the war would be impermissible because the criteria of proportionality and of utility might not be met.

66
00:07:16,170 --> 00:07:19,709
In this particular case, it's highly unlikely that if the poor were to attack the rich,

67
00:07:19,710 --> 00:07:26,130
the poor would actually succeed in in winning this war and obtaining that just cause they're fighting for.

68
00:07:26,610 --> 00:07:34,140
So on the one hand, Casper says, yes, if we are contributing to these terrible harms and deaths, we are liable to attack.

69
00:07:34,170 --> 00:07:39,690
It wouldn't be wrong for the fall to attack us. But on the other hand, it would be impermissible,

70
00:07:39,690 --> 00:07:46,049
all things considered for the poor to attack us because the criterion, especially of nonce utility, would not be met.

71
00:07:46,050 --> 00:07:48,390
And in all likelihood, in this particular case,

72
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:57,959
and Casper's argument overall relies on a moral distinction that many find plausible, others find implausible.

73
00:07:57,960 --> 00:08:04,650
That is the distinction between actions and omissions. And in his view, or at least on the view that he is canvassing in this particular favour,

74
00:08:04,980 --> 00:08:10,470
liability only makes sense if one actively contributes to bringing about a particular harm.

75
00:08:10,830 --> 00:08:14,580
And even though one might want to challenge this premise of the paper,

76
00:08:14,580 --> 00:08:20,819
I am not going to discuss it in my comments and focus on the two main claims that

77
00:08:20,820 --> 00:08:25,300
Casper makes taking for granted the particular moral framework that his adopts.

78
00:08:25,770 --> 00:08:28,630
And I'm going to try and raise two challenges to the two main claims.

79
00:08:29,070 --> 00:08:38,100
On the one hand, I am going to suggest that even if it is true that we contribute in some way to bringing about these deaths,

80
00:08:38,100 --> 00:08:42,570
in fact, only very few amongst the rich people would be liable to attack.

81
00:08:43,410 --> 00:08:45,209
And the second thing that I want to say,

82
00:08:45,210 --> 00:08:54,300
and this is probably more provocative and I am not very happy with defending this claim that I am just going to outline in a second,

83
00:08:54,630 --> 00:09:00,750
but it seems to me at least prima facie plausible the second claim is even if the rich are not involved,

84
00:09:00,750 --> 00:09:05,729
they are not causing the poor to die and so they are not liable.

85
00:09:05,730 --> 00:09:12,840
And even if in all likelihood the poor will not succeed in waging war, it would still be permissible for them to do so.

86
00:09:12,870 --> 00:09:17,130
I realise this is a very extreme claim, but I want to try an argument for this.

87
00:09:17,370 --> 00:09:25,820
So the first one, the question of liability for the rich. Now Castro thinks that the conclusions he gets to in this paper are very polemical indeed.

88
00:09:25,860 --> 00:09:31,460
He thinks that one might even see them as a reductio of his argument.

89
00:09:31,470 --> 00:09:35,040
You consider this possibility, you don't think it is, but you see them as very polemical.

90
00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:39,749
And I have to say that when I first read the paper, I thought, yeah, of course we can.

91
00:09:39,750 --> 00:09:44,520
We kill these people by appropriate and entitlements that are that are not ours.

92
00:09:44,850 --> 00:09:50,370
Surely they have a right to enforce them and even kill us if that's what we are doing to them.

93
00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:52,950
And I think that the in a way,

94
00:09:52,950 --> 00:10:01,800
the simplicity of this moral picture is a bit artificial because of some of the simplifying assumptions that Kasper makes in the paper.

95
00:10:02,100 --> 00:10:03,899
And I realise that these are assumptions,

96
00:10:03,900 --> 00:10:11,700
but I think that the paper and the conclusion becomes a lot less obvious and the paper more interesting if we relax some of these assumptions.

97
00:10:11,700 --> 00:10:16,770
And I have in mind two assumptions either explicitly or implicitly made.

98
00:10:17,220 --> 00:10:27,360
The first one is the suggestion that in a way there are the rich people and all of them are contributing to contributing

99
00:10:27,360 --> 00:10:35,249
somehow to the same extent or in the same way to causing the deaths of the poor and presumably in the rich world.

100
00:10:35,250 --> 00:10:42,650
I'm assuming that rich people are sort of relatively well-off inhabitants of Western states.

101
00:10:42,660 --> 00:10:48,930
I mean, it's hard to exactly pinpoint, but it seems to be a reasonable approximation of who counted people,

102
00:10:49,380 --> 00:10:56,930
but presumably different rich people differently involved in bringing about these particular negative outcomes for the poor.

103
00:10:56,940 --> 00:11:04,200
So the president of a very wealthy country must be a lot more responsible than a shop assistant in Trenton, New Jersey.

104
00:11:05,100 --> 00:11:12,780
And this is the first claim and the second this is the first simplification that I think makes things a bit too easy for you.

105
00:11:12,780 --> 00:11:16,689
And the second one has to do with the distinction between actions and omissions.

106
00:11:16,690 --> 00:11:24,690
So I take it that the reason why actions have a particular moral weight is because of the involvement.

107
00:11:24,900 --> 00:11:29,370
The agency of the particular person was acting in bringing about a certain outcome.

108
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:35,620
But here again, I think we could have a more nuanced view of what kind of involvement of the agency we're talking about.

109
00:11:35,640 --> 00:11:40,379
There are very many different ways of acting and of having one agency involved.

110
00:11:40,380 --> 00:11:46,800
And we could put together, on the one hand, the sort of empirical claim that the ways in which different rich people contribute

111
00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:53,010
to world poverty varies with the sort of normative claim about the the fact

112
00:11:53,010 --> 00:11:58,229
that the moral weight of certain actions tracks the degree of immoral involvement

113
00:11:58,230 --> 00:12:02,340
of the agency of the particular actor in bringing about a certain outcome.

114
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:11,940
It seems to me that very few people in the rich world would sort of meet a threshold of involvement of the agency that might justify killing them,

115
00:12:12,210 --> 00:12:15,750
the shop assistant intervention and a lot of other people. This is a challenge to the view.

116
00:12:15,750 --> 00:12:17,520
If we take this more nuanced approach,

117
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:26,850
I wonder whether to what extent we could say that the rich people as a whole would be liable to attack maybe a lot fewer than you suggest.

118
00:12:27,390 --> 00:12:31,410
So this is the first part of the comment about the question of liability for the rich.

119
00:12:32,160 --> 00:12:35,460
The second part of the comment. S Yeah. Just to clarify.

120
00:12:35,490 --> 00:12:40,830
Yeah. So it's an omission. How could it. In terms of the picture in relation to.

121
00:12:41,190 --> 00:12:50,219
So I took it that the reason why an action the reason why bringing about a particular harm is morally worse makes you liable

122
00:12:50,220 --> 00:12:58,930
to worse consequences that just failing to prevent it is because your agency somehow is more involved in this particular.

123
00:12:59,400 --> 00:13:04,100
So the serving of that intervention is probably the level of it more.

124
00:13:04,140 --> 00:13:12,990
If the idea is that you are all the more liable, the more you contribute to a particular harm in the sense that your agency is more involved in it,

125
00:13:12,990 --> 00:13:15,719
and considerations about intentionality,

126
00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:20,820
but also other kinds of considerations about what the impact of what you're doing is on the overall outcome then.

127
00:13:20,850 --> 00:13:31,770
Yeah. Thanks, Claire. So the second point about permissibility and so Caspar says, and I think supposedly that, you know,

128
00:13:31,770 --> 00:13:39,030
looking at criteria, you use a bellum if we consider proportionality and especially law utility,

129
00:13:39,330 --> 00:13:44,309
all things considered, it should be permissible for the court to attack the rich because they're just going to cause

130
00:13:44,310 --> 00:13:49,080
a great deal of harm and obtain very little themselves because they're probably going to fail.

131
00:13:49,830 --> 00:13:55,830
And the thought that I had in connection with this argument is whether it actually makes

132
00:13:55,830 --> 00:14:03,840
sense to apply such heavy moral burdens of the on people who live in such extreme conditions.

133
00:14:03,840 --> 00:14:10,980
So we are the poor in a situation that we might want to say is outside the so-called circumstances of justice.

134
00:14:11,370 --> 00:14:14,760
So the fact that he is not moderate is absolute.

135
00:14:15,210 --> 00:14:22,580
And the only way they have to survive seems to be if, you know, they've tried out persuasion,

136
00:14:23,430 --> 00:14:26,070
you know, trying to convince the rich people and so on and so forth.

137
00:14:26,430 --> 00:14:33,419
The only thing they can do, the one thing that is left to them would be just to go and have a war, wage war against them.

138
00:14:33,420 --> 00:14:39,360
And even though I realise that the utility criterion on utility criterion wouldn't be met,

139
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:43,500
I just wonder whether it makes sense to place such a heavy burden on them.

140
00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:50,610
So even though even in an in a situation in which they have two societies, one is a rich society, the other one is a poor society.

141
00:14:50,610 --> 00:14:55,650
And the poor society is not because the rich have done anything to it, but because of some kind of natural disaster.

142
00:14:55,920 --> 00:15:01,650
So in this particular case, I would imagine on the particular moral framework that you assume in this favour,

143
00:15:01,920 --> 00:15:06,120
the rich would have a duty to assist those in need.

144
00:15:06,420 --> 00:15:10,590
That is the poor. But the poor wouldn't have a strict right to assistance, so to speak.

145
00:15:10,590 --> 00:15:15,990
So if the rich didn't assist, they would be acting wrongly, but they wouldn't be wrong in the poor in particular.

146
00:15:16,260 --> 00:15:23,489
And the poor therefore would not have a strict right to wage war against the rich because the rich wouldn't be liable.

147
00:15:23,490 --> 00:15:31,830
They haven't contributed. That would be the view. Even so, and even if the poor would be unlikely to win, it just seems very strange to me.

148
00:15:31,830 --> 00:15:39,180
Very in a in a way, a bit inhuman, so to speak, to to expect them not to wage war,

149
00:15:39,180 --> 00:15:46,740
to say that it is even impermissible to do that given the particular circumstances in which they live, if they are just dying.

150
00:15:46,770 --> 00:15:48,840
Maybe they're thinking of it. It's highly unlikely.

151
00:15:49,140 --> 00:15:59,310
But maybe if we take such extreme measures, the rich might realise or anyway that just I just want to go tell them, look at what they've done to me.

152
00:15:59,820 --> 00:16:06,360
I'm just wondering the thought underlying this and I realise it's sort of provocative and maybe a little crazy,

153
00:16:06,570 --> 00:16:11,190
but I'm genuinely wondering whether under conditions of absolute scarcity,

154
00:16:11,520 --> 00:16:19,080
it makes sense to hold people responsible to the same degree or to the same moral standards than we would under different conditions.

155
00:16:19,290 --> 00:16:24,630
So these are my thoughts. Well, we have plenty of time for discussion, but maybe we should stick to the.

156
00:16:24,700 --> 00:16:30,400
A newly established customer of a restrained finger. Henry was first.

157
00:16:31,210 --> 00:16:37,390
Okay. I thought this first is just meant to be sort of a public interest announcement of this paper.

158
00:16:37,470 --> 00:16:44,860
At least one other paper cites David Lumens 1980 just for Human Rights article.

159
00:16:45,070 --> 00:16:49,180
He wrote a later article in which he really significantly qualified those views.

160
00:16:49,180 --> 00:16:56,379
And no one ever seems to remember that this doesn't settle any local suffering, cause then he was right the first time.

161
00:16:56,380 --> 00:16:58,660
But I just think it's an interesting article.

162
00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:10,870
Also, since I'm retired, I don't get to assign anyone any readings in a book called Global Justice and Transnational Politics.

163
00:17:10,870 --> 00:17:14,499
And then by Pablo The Grief and Somebody.

164
00:17:14,500 --> 00:17:19,720
Cronin And it's called Intervention and Civilisation Some Unhappy Lessons of the Kosovo War.

165
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:36,250
So but now there's something clearly more substantive at 1.1 place when might try to go with Laura's second crazy for it would be you know we

166
00:17:36,250 --> 00:17:46,510
often get these examples in which we are told of somebody is an absolutely catastrophic situation and so it counts as a supreme emergency.

167
00:17:46,510 --> 00:17:49,690
And so they can, you know, slaughter lots of civilians or whatever.

168
00:17:49,690 --> 00:18:01,479
And my response to those cases is to think before we sort of authorise those people to the slaughter of civilians wherever it is it might be.

169
00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:04,060
Some of the rest of us are to do something, you know,

170
00:18:04,450 --> 00:18:11,409
like there often this kind of intervention cases where the only way the desperate people could win would be a news to other

171
00:18:11,410 --> 00:18:19,299
people that of course we could just send in the 101st Airborne or whatever and in and do something slightly more restrained.

172
00:18:19,300 --> 00:18:26,580
And it seems to me you can do one way you could go with the flow is last point is say yeah it really does.

173
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:39,130
Like given how callous and totally unconcerned we have shown ourselves to be, maybe they really wouldn't be unjustified in attacking us,

174
00:18:40,090 --> 00:18:46,090
from which we conclude not the visual targets, but that we should we should do something.

175
00:18:46,090 --> 00:18:51,040
I mean I mean, you know, in the sense that I think this is sort of silly because,

176
00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:53,860
I mean, there's plenty of good reasons why we should be doing something anyway.

177
00:18:54,010 --> 00:19:00,970
But at least it seems kind of one more reason why maybe we should finally get serious.

178
00:19:01,870 --> 00:19:06,790
The reason being that we've left people in this situation in which they either,

179
00:19:07,450 --> 00:19:14,620
you know, die with no dignity or watch a totally futile importance attack.

180
00:19:14,620 --> 00:19:19,510
And those are the only options we've left them. So maybe we ought to think about giving them another option.

181
00:19:22,310 --> 00:19:30,280
Okay. Could I just say and also in response to last point, I think that this line of thought is somewhat sympathetic.

182
00:19:31,600 --> 00:19:35,979
Sorry, I thought what we were saying was actually quite sympathetic to what you say,

183
00:19:35,980 --> 00:19:41,620
that it's and it wouldn't be wrong to attack them in a in a previous case where they contribute,

184
00:19:41,860 --> 00:19:46,390
but it would be all things considered and permissible. And I thought that would be the thing. Never mind.

185
00:19:47,110 --> 00:19:54,310
Yeah. But as I would like to think of my arguments, it would be consistent with taking the view that you take it.

186
00:19:54,520 --> 00:20:05,470
It's simply not a view that it is a view that says that given that we make poor people as badly off as they are,

187
00:20:05,590 --> 00:20:16,270
then it is permissible for them to kill us if they that was a way of preventing this unjust structure and we're liable to attack.

188
00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:25,000
But that is consistent with saying that even if we do not make them as the officer as they are,

189
00:20:26,050 --> 00:20:31,390
even if they're just in this condition of absolute disgust, scarcity,

190
00:20:32,170 --> 00:20:39,520
and we have nothing to do that it's permissible for them to attack us, that that would be,

191
00:20:39,520 --> 00:20:44,319
I take it, a more extreme view in a way than the one I have defended here.

192
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:49,360
But I don't think that I say anything that is inconsistent with that.

193
00:20:49,570 --> 00:20:55,930
Actually, I mentioned in passing this case of the Holocaust, where one might say,

194
00:20:57,430 --> 00:21:03,280
suppose that people in the Warsaw Ghetto had the they knew that they would not avoid being killed,

195
00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:08,950
but they at least fought with dignity and it would seem that that might be permissible for them to do then.

196
00:21:09,220 --> 00:21:14,799
I think this same kind of. So maybe it's just my misunderstanding.

197
00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:17,980
And if it was my misunderstanding, I apologise for that.

198
00:21:18,340 --> 00:21:27,760
But what I thought the thesis and this came later in the paper, I think, was that under those particular assumptions we would be liable.

199
00:21:27,770 --> 00:21:37,209
But because these two criteria of proportionality, and especially the non-security criterion, as you said, balance would probably not be fulfilled.

200
00:21:37,210 --> 00:21:39,490
All things considered, it would not be permissible.

201
00:21:39,490 --> 00:21:45,760
And in fact, at some point you also have sort of imagined, imagined counterfactual that they could succeed.

202
00:21:46,090 --> 00:21:49,150
Would, in that case, be wrong of them to attack us?

203
00:21:49,250 --> 00:21:53,290
No. So it's even if all things considered is not permissible, it is still worth making the point.

204
00:21:53,290 --> 00:22:05,649
And so that's where I think that the disagreement or suggestion of provocation, whatever lies justified, because this is just a follow up,

205
00:22:05,650 --> 00:22:08,379
I think and one of the unusual argument made a minute ago,

206
00:22:08,380 --> 00:22:17,080
I don't quite buy into this feasibility and proportionality assumption, but I really are about the same problem.

207
00:22:17,080 --> 00:22:20,319
You didn't seem very convincing and then you try to put a face.

208
00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:26,440
So let's think about India. You knew that 800 million people who earn less than $2 a day, India's a nuclear power.

209
00:22:27,170 --> 00:22:30,860
Now, your scenario seems that how would this work out?

210
00:22:30,880 --> 00:22:37,060
First of all, you could certainly mount a feasible threat. It could be proportional if it was only a credible threat.

211
00:22:37,630 --> 00:22:47,560
In other words, they were using it as a credible threat to extort additional funds from the Western world from from from from the United States.

212
00:22:49,060 --> 00:22:53,290
One that would fit into your scenario. On the other hand, it seems to me that they would do that.

213
00:22:53,290 --> 00:22:57,760
It would certainly break down because it would be much worse off anyway, the United States and say, well, we're not going to invest you anymore.

214
00:22:58,240 --> 00:23:03,610
But it seems like you could have both ways. I mean, feasibility, you do have proportionality.

215
00:23:04,390 --> 00:23:07,600
But what will work out in the real world and I'm not sure if they would to do it or not,

216
00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:11,140
but why would you necessarily assume that you're never going to be able to do this?

217
00:23:16,930 --> 00:23:31,800
Okay. I think it is not essential to my arguments whether it is actually possible or impossible for poor countries to reform the unjust,

218
00:23:32,790 --> 00:23:34,230
unjust global structure.

219
00:23:35,880 --> 00:23:46,660
I'm severe, but but and I have to take into consideration different kinds of forces that come to me that I would also have to take into account.

220
00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:58,740
Asymmetric wars. And also, if it is really that inexpensive for rich countries to eliminate global poverty,

221
00:23:59,790 --> 00:24:10,910
it might be much cheaper for us to just pay the money that are needed rather than to fight wars against poor countries.

222
00:24:10,920 --> 00:24:14,280
But I would say if it is possible for India to.

223
00:24:15,540 --> 00:24:22,020
Pose a credible threat and in that way eliminate the unjust group structure.

224
00:24:23,100 --> 00:24:28,220
And if the unjust global structure has the kind of nature that it has, according to hockey.

225
00:24:30,420 --> 00:24:40,650
Well, then I think it would be permissible for India to pose a threat to us and we would be liable to having.

226
00:24:42,460 --> 00:24:44,540
Put us. Jeff.

227
00:24:45,660 --> 00:24:58,100
And I want to say something easy and supportive as far as first point and second in support of the first point, an asymptomatic confessor.

228
00:24:58,670 --> 00:25:04,550
So forgive me if this is just the standard, but it seems to me the one thing to say about the idea that.

229
00:25:05,980 --> 00:25:07,920
Responsibility for what you're.

230
00:25:08,210 --> 00:25:19,700
Two years is global structures underlies the idea that the rich are actually not just allowing people to die or actually killing them.

231
00:25:20,480 --> 00:25:27,800
I want to suggest that whatever global structures there are are not things that.

232
00:25:29,610 --> 00:25:40,000
People who exist now can be very much responsible for being there as global structures, whatever they are,

233
00:25:40,010 --> 00:25:49,770
are structures that have evolved over many generations of people is nobody who decided at any given time,

234
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:55,110
let us set up the world in this way the politics, the economics and so on.

235
00:25:55,110 --> 00:26:05,159
It is evolved to be what it is. And there's never been a time when we can where any of us could together say, Well, wait a minute, this is unjust.

236
00:26:05,160 --> 00:26:09,870
Let's stop doing it this way right now and and change it today.

237
00:26:09,870 --> 00:26:13,890
Let's completely reorganise the world economy and world politics.

238
00:26:14,100 --> 00:26:21,600
And let's just get this over with once and for all. It's just not a possibility, even for the very rich to do anything like this.

239
00:26:22,890 --> 00:26:28,260
You know, any kind of change in what's being called global structures here has to be.

240
00:26:28,830 --> 00:26:31,930
Some people, just necessarily a lot of people are trying to do this.

241
00:26:31,950 --> 00:26:38,309
And you might want to rewrite the argument claiming that those people who are resisting

242
00:26:38,310 --> 00:26:44,760
the international institutions or something like that or whatever are going to be liable.

243
00:26:45,120 --> 00:26:54,660
But it's it's hard to see how anybody now can be held to be responsible for the nature of global institutions.

244
00:26:55,710 --> 00:27:05,720
Secondly, I worried about the kind of coherence of our second part, because Europe mixing, I think, two things together.

245
00:27:05,730 --> 00:27:11,220
You're saying, first of all, that their action would be futile.

246
00:27:11,890 --> 00:27:19,290
But you were saying that we would be somehow burdening them to prevent them from engaging in this action.

247
00:27:19,290 --> 00:27:23,040
But I don't think we'd be really burdening them if the action were actually unilateral,

248
00:27:23,050 --> 00:27:28,350
if they weren't going to get better as a result of things that no good for them was going to call it,

249
00:27:28,350 --> 00:27:31,980
and it wouldn't be adding to their burden just to say, no, you can't, you can't do this.

250
00:27:32,550 --> 00:27:37,470
So and lastly, it just seemed to me that even if we thought there.

251
00:27:39,540 --> 00:27:45,060
Somehow it's understandable why they would want to do this, as you said,

252
00:27:45,450 --> 00:27:51,690
and look at what they've done to me or something like that, that that phrase itself suggests that what they have done,

253
00:27:52,140 --> 00:27:57,580
this is just an excuse rather than a commission or a justification, would suggest that,

254
00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:03,840
you know, they've made war on these rich people without any real hope of success or whatever.

255
00:28:06,680 --> 00:28:10,470
And we can see that they were excused to do that. It's not clear that.

256
00:28:11,880 --> 00:28:22,800
I can testify that Danny has with an excellent painting regime that it could be justified by giving too good to other than that success in the.

257
00:28:25,280 --> 00:28:34,130
So in response to the first point about the global structure not being something that anyone is responsible for,

258
00:28:34,790 --> 00:28:42,890
I guess that would be taking issue with Pakistan's analysis rather than taking issue with my argument.

259
00:28:42,980 --> 00:28:49,430
I'm assuming that Pakistan argument is is analysis of global poverty is correct.

260
00:28:49,430 --> 00:29:02,749
And he's saying things like rich states impose unjust global structure on poor countries and people living in rich countries who vote for the parties

261
00:29:02,750 --> 00:29:14,730
and the governments that imposes unjust structure on poor people are complicit in this crime against humanity that is being committed itself.

262
00:29:15,360 --> 00:29:22,400
So as I would suspect that that your point is more directed against focussed analysis than against my argument.

263
00:29:23,450 --> 00:29:33,860
But setting that aside, to consider a case in which we have this club of rich nations and the people in different rich countries,

264
00:29:35,180 --> 00:29:42,050
both for governments and these governments, meet at various points and make decisions.

265
00:29:42,560 --> 00:29:46,760
They make decisions about whether or not to attack poor countries,

266
00:29:48,620 --> 00:29:57,050
and so happens that they decide to wage war against poor countries, killing 8 million poor people a year.

267
00:29:58,880 --> 00:30:03,530
I suppose that many would say that in this kind of case,

268
00:30:04,700 --> 00:30:17,360
people who live in rich countries and had voted for governments that took part in making the decision to do it will bear sufficient responsibility

269
00:30:17,900 --> 00:30:29,870
for what's happening to poor countries such that they cannot complain when they are being killed in defence of wars by poor countries.

270
00:30:30,570 --> 00:30:37,790
And I am and I simply want to say that if we imagine a analogous scenario with regard to global poverty,

271
00:30:37,790 --> 00:30:47,480
where the individual responsibility of a citizen in rich countries is tiny because it's not real,

272
00:30:48,160 --> 00:30:52,840
it wouldn't have made any real difference in the average person that voted for different parties.

273
00:30:53,250 --> 00:30:55,730
But if we think that in the military scenario,

274
00:30:56,450 --> 00:31:06,050
people are liable to being harmed in a defensive war by poor countries to see why we shouldn't say the same about the poverty scenario,

275
00:31:06,590 --> 00:31:13,370
provided that focus analysis is the nature of global poverty is correct and very brief.

276
00:31:13,370 --> 00:31:17,120
We have a huge list. Okay. I'm sorry. It's just this.

277
00:31:19,300 --> 00:31:22,380
I think you're you're you're gesturing towards the.

278
00:31:24,080 --> 00:31:25,190
Killing and letting die here.

279
00:31:25,190 --> 00:31:36,050
I mean, the very fact that nobody, including the Fuhrer themselves, sees what's happening as exactly like our going over there and killing them.

280
00:31:38,510 --> 00:31:46,220
Points to the weakness in the argument that what you and Thomas are describing really is much more like letting people die.

281
00:31:46,550 --> 00:31:51,890
And anybody can tell the difference between the functioning of global institutions as we have it today,

282
00:31:52,100 --> 00:31:55,280
and how picking up our machine guns and going over there and mowing them down.

283
00:31:57,110 --> 00:32:02,540
I do think it's telling that the victims themselves don't think of themselves as being killed by us.

284
00:32:04,010 --> 00:32:13,669
I think that's telling to. But I also think that some of the examples he mentions say, like, well, are these medicines.

285
00:32:13,670 --> 00:32:22,190
They could be produced very in very cheap ways. We sue companies that produce these very cheap medicines and as a result,

286
00:32:22,460 --> 00:32:28,160
the case of preventing people from saving I don't want to interrupt, but the list is really long.

287
00:32:28,160 --> 00:32:35,660
And also the finger rule is suspended for not telling the other.

288
00:32:41,520 --> 00:32:48,460
I thought it was quite critical, said the council chair, leading the negotiations that critics of Donald Trump's decision.

289
00:32:51,260 --> 00:32:59,770
That's the poor stuff, and the lack of a full weather causal chain makes no difference.

290
00:33:01,000 --> 00:33:04,800
But I don't think people are going to see the idea of correctness.

291
00:33:05,290 --> 00:33:10,570
But the call to change the way you talk about giving the rating agency.

292
00:33:11,570 --> 00:33:20,330
In itself. So the case that you give is two different forms, but in both cases to be.

293
00:33:21,650 --> 00:33:27,020
Before the homeschoolers got a blank check for the negotiations.

294
00:33:29,300 --> 00:33:33,990
We have lots and lots. A lot of people are going to make.

295
00:33:35,190 --> 00:33:47,639
Yeah. And that's a that's a criticism I accept in the sense that I don't think I've addressed this in the way I should in the paper.

296
00:33:47,640 --> 00:33:53,100
So that's something I need to work on. But I'm thinking about it.

297
00:33:53,640 --> 00:34:00,390
So, so, so there a difference between the poverty scenario and the military aggression scenario.

298
00:34:01,620 --> 00:34:11,189
If the poverty scenario works in the way that by recognising dictators in third world countries as having ownership of natural

299
00:34:11,190 --> 00:34:20,309
resources in the country and thereby giving incentives to generals to take over power from a democratically elected government,

300
00:34:20,310 --> 00:34:28,200
says the intervening agency of governments to establish an equivalent to the military scenario case.

301
00:34:29,310 --> 00:34:39,500
We should imagine a case where rich countries give incentives for dictators to wage war against their own people by military means or something,

302
00:34:39,570 --> 00:34:44,940
and that that would establish some kind of symmetry between the two cases I want to compare,

303
00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:58,230
because they would then both involve intervening, and the claim I would then have to argue for would be that it would also be permissible for poor

304
00:34:58,230 --> 00:35:06,600
people suffering from dictators waging war against their own people to attack rich countries.

305
00:35:06,600 --> 00:35:12,030
As if that was a way of removing disincentives for if you want to take over power.

306
00:35:13,740 --> 00:35:17,910
I assume that if the numbers are right, the numbers are big.

307
00:35:18,660 --> 00:35:32,010
That could be permissible. I think the discussions about causal chains and individual agency,

308
00:35:32,010 --> 00:35:36,690
I think at the moment are very unrealistic and really highlight some of the points made

309
00:35:36,710 --> 00:35:40,710
in the newspaper about the inadequacy of an individual's approach to these questions.

310
00:35:40,790 --> 00:35:45,899
Things like Scott Leach's responsibility shows being fairly plausible,

311
00:35:45,900 --> 00:35:49,950
easy to understand, and maybe even analysis that one significant function of a legal,

312
00:35:49,950 --> 00:35:58,430
rational system of legal, rational authority is to displace responsibility in terms of create structures of responsibility between individuals.

313
00:35:58,860 --> 00:36:05,790
So just seems very bizarre. That participant in that sort of structure can escape of moral burdens,

314
00:36:05,790 --> 00:36:10,919
harms those structures utterly foreseeable and deliberately induced by hiding behind

315
00:36:10,920 --> 00:36:14,580
the shelter of the very structures that they've created to achieve that result.

316
00:36:15,490 --> 00:36:17,790
I mean, as I was wanting to say in a domestic court,

317
00:36:17,790 --> 00:36:21,060
perhaps shareholders are responsible for the crimes of the company in which they have been shares.

318
00:36:21,360 --> 00:36:24,480
That's a positive legal question, but I think that settles the moral issue.

319
00:36:24,840 --> 00:36:26,780
Just when you asked to be Marxist, right,

320
00:36:26,790 --> 00:36:31,260
to think that that stuff that we put up is completely standard American analysis will get you the same treatment.

321
00:36:32,080 --> 00:36:37,490
This the same consequence. So I'm much more sympathetic to policy for that sort of reason, and that's fine.

322
00:36:37,740 --> 00:36:43,770
Some of those objections really extremely unrealistic and absurd. Only on the challenge.

323
00:36:43,770 --> 00:36:46,920
I think I'm very sympathetic to it. I actually write it off the thesis defending it.

324
00:36:47,100 --> 00:36:50,399
I think you have to do it in a Hobbesian framework is how you do it.

325
00:36:50,400 --> 00:36:55,890
Not a whole lot in framework might get you there, but the moral against law will get you to something like that.

326
00:36:56,230 --> 00:37:00,540
But I think that they have the resources perhaps to deal with the potential India objection,

327
00:37:01,020 --> 00:37:04,440
because if it really is a war of all against all and all sovereigns are dissolved,

328
00:37:04,680 --> 00:37:10,410
then the Indian government special standing to kind of act as an agent and use uses nuclear weapons, pulls away.

329
00:37:10,710 --> 00:37:16,740
So you might build on that idea to try to sort of dissolve the that possibly that's met with rejection.

330
00:37:16,740 --> 00:37:22,650
You might try to dissolve it in the obscene analysis. Also still preserving the admissibility of the en maps or something of that sort.

331
00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:30,080
No, I haven't worked out the details. I think it's I mean, it's not that Hobbes's the framework not you can't walk.

332
00:37:32,390 --> 00:37:40,070
Reasonable thoughts and questions. Okay. So I'm not sure I got the second thought.

333
00:37:40,400 --> 00:37:45,979
But with regard to the first one, I, I totally agree.

334
00:37:45,980 --> 00:37:52,100
And I would be crazy not to admit that some of the scenarios, I imagine are very unrealistic.

335
00:37:52,100 --> 00:37:58,310
And I suppose that there is a general issue about a general methodological issue here that where

336
00:37:58,440 --> 00:38:05,930
we might take different views about how one identifies basic principles of morality for all,

337
00:38:06,770 --> 00:38:15,709
but thinking about it and not trying to set aside these methodological issues, do this with scenarios.

338
00:38:15,710 --> 00:38:18,820
Do they tell us anything about the morality of hope?

339
00:38:20,060 --> 00:38:29,600
I'm wondering if in this kind of cases, the complexity, of course, of change is such a big deal.

340
00:38:30,440 --> 00:38:33,530
I mean, it might be a big deal if you think that it's very important,

341
00:38:33,920 --> 00:38:40,640
whether we are talking about the death of identify people or not identify people.

342
00:38:40,980 --> 00:38:49,160
So I think if we're talking about if we know for sure that if we continue with this unjust global structure,

343
00:38:49,580 --> 00:38:55,190
18 million people a year will die with the complex.

344
00:38:55,490 --> 00:39:01,040
The causal chains leading to the death of these 18 million people are extremely complex.

345
00:39:01,040 --> 00:39:10,639
And we can't say much about we can't predict who will die in poverty and that the force of change leading from the

346
00:39:10,640 --> 00:39:20,750
unjust global structure to the death of any individual poor person are something that we do not really able to chart.

347
00:39:21,350 --> 00:39:28,100
I think that does matter so much, given that if we know that something like 18 million people a year,

348
00:39:29,660 --> 00:39:37,390
I know we're in complete agreement to [INAUDIBLE] is right in the last row as I would like to support.

349
00:39:38,030 --> 00:39:47,590
I do not think that I imposed an unjust global order upon the poor, and I find it always very silly of poverty,

350
00:39:47,610 --> 00:39:56,510
as does this step in a subclause saying our governments and then and hence we impose an unjust global order.

351
00:39:56,690 --> 00:40:03,139
I think that would need significant argument if Thomas argues that by going to a supermarket

352
00:40:03,140 --> 00:40:08,930
and buying something or paying taxes and telling people that it seems rather strange,

353
00:40:09,080 --> 00:40:10,729
rather strange thing to say,

354
00:40:10,730 --> 00:40:19,200
but if there is to a participating in the global economical order is, you know, participating in the slightest provocation then actually committed,

355
00:40:19,200 --> 00:40:24,570
then you can also kill people working in the sweatshop because they are participating in the same way.

356
00:40:24,920 --> 00:40:27,050
So the poor would be liable to attack, too.

357
00:40:27,510 --> 00:40:38,180
And the second point is, it seems to me that the whole world of liability suits behind your argument that all this argument is is mistaken.

358
00:40:38,540 --> 00:40:44,390
It is not true that we become liable to attack only because we causally contribute an unjust harm.

359
00:40:44,750 --> 00:40:57,590
For example, if some guy crashes the skull of another person unjustly with a copy of my Habermas, Habermas or causally contributed to an unjust harm.

360
00:40:57,590 --> 00:41:01,640
But I have not become liable to attack me that if I become liable to compensation.

361
00:41:02,660 --> 00:41:08,300
And the third point is one sorry. Just before we go to the third, could you just give me the case once more?

362
00:41:08,360 --> 00:41:13,790
I'm sorry. I was well, you know, I published the Copenhagen Muslims linking up to the Holocaust.

363
00:41:13,790 --> 00:41:24,010
And by, in your opinion, a person's head and I causally contributed, therefore, to a person's death in case somebody decides to kill somebody.

364
00:41:24,020 --> 00:41:27,510
But not knowing that that would be an upcoming.

365
00:41:27,790 --> 00:41:35,959
Well, I do I know that it is an outcome of first of all,

366
00:41:35,960 --> 00:41:42,410
I don't know of doesn't know that an outcome of my by the zealot will kill somebody in the third world,

367
00:41:42,980 --> 00:41:47,810
especially not if, on the other hand, he says that terrorism trades actually block,

368
00:41:48,170 --> 00:41:52,639
you know, food coming into our country and therefore people die somewhere else.

369
00:41:52,640 --> 00:41:56,890
So you have to make up your mind, is it bad for me to buy food or is it not happening?

370
00:41:57,620 --> 00:42:01,190
But anyway, there is a cult of liability that is impossible.

371
00:42:01,820 --> 00:42:11,990
And the third point connected to this is if if in reality imposing upon someone an unjust global order makes you liable to attack,

372
00:42:12,470 --> 00:42:16,129
then you have to see the following, for example, of stuff that comes along.

373
00:42:16,130 --> 00:42:20,600
And they beat me up and then they put me into an unjust prison where I am treated like scum.

374
00:42:20,810 --> 00:42:26,030
Then, of course, those people who beat me up and down have imposed upon me an unjust global order.

375
00:42:26,360 --> 00:42:29,630
And the other way you can impose an unjust, just global order.

376
00:42:30,330 --> 00:42:36,780
Person is to to be our child if that is proper English or to give birth to a child in the Third World.

377
00:42:37,170 --> 00:42:41,790
So on all mothers in the Third World who are getting children would end up having

378
00:42:42,420 --> 00:42:46,440
a liable to attack because they impose an unjust global order on these children.

379
00:42:46,710 --> 00:42:57,390
In this instance, the of the whole argument. Actually I have a footnote in the paper.

380
00:43:00,100 --> 00:43:02,670
Yeah. About child bearing.

381
00:43:04,830 --> 00:43:20,549
And so suppose that if we didn't impose an unjust world order, then, uh, the people who are poor in the world today would be better off,

382
00:43:20,550 --> 00:43:29,280
but instead they would live lots of other people who would be, uh, well, pretty poorly off as well, but still lived life worth living.

383
00:43:30,240 --> 00:43:32,520
I think that in that kind of case,

384
00:43:34,470 --> 00:43:44,030
it becomes less clear that we that the poor who was actually living now have complained about the unjust global strike.

385
00:43:44,100 --> 00:43:53,230
But I guess that's a different issue. With regards to your first point, I'm not so certain about this.

386
00:43:55,230 --> 00:44:06,030
Is this issue about our governments that the governments of the most powerful countries in the world and.

387
00:44:07,550 --> 00:44:12,650
It's probably not just the United States and England, France and Germany any longer.

388
00:44:13,230 --> 00:44:23,060
There are other states that should be mentioned here. There is a sense in which they are in a position to have a greater influence on

389
00:44:23,330 --> 00:44:31,970
whatever global structure we live under than countries like Zimbabwe or whatever.

390
00:44:33,470 --> 00:44:40,850
And also imagine that. Imagine that a country is engaged in an.

391
00:44:41,960 --> 00:44:51,560
Genocide and people will not be prosecuted in any way if they refuse to pay taxes.

392
00:44:52,490 --> 00:44:57,469
And I think in that situation,

393
00:44:57,470 --> 00:45:08,510
if I say I don't want to pay taxes because I don't want to be contributing to the genocide that my government is conducting.

394
00:45:09,020 --> 00:45:18,410
And if I did that, if I paid my taxes despite the fact that I would not suffer any sanctions if I didn't,

395
00:45:19,370 --> 00:45:27,890
then it doesn't seem right to say, well, I bear some responsibility for the genocide that my government is conducting.

396
00:45:28,720 --> 00:45:33,470
Now, the fact is, of course, that people will actually suffer penalties if they do not pay their taxes.

397
00:45:34,910 --> 00:45:42,050
But that might just show that the excuse for it is if the punishment is severe enough,

398
00:45:42,440 --> 00:45:48,580
that they are excused for being partly responsible for what the government does.

399
00:45:48,680 --> 00:45:55,490
I don't think it shows that they are not responsible at all. And also, I think we should we should compare this to a case of military aggression.

400
00:45:56,840 --> 00:46:03,680
And I'm assuming that there could be cases in which a government starts military aggression

401
00:46:03,680 --> 00:46:09,200
against another country and then civilians in that country are liable to be harmed.

402
00:46:09,500 --> 00:46:15,620
See, as a by product of attack, incompetence of that unjust, aggressive country.

403
00:46:16,160 --> 00:46:19,220
And if we say in that case that the civilians,

404
00:46:19,730 --> 00:46:29,750
they are liable to be killed as a by-product of military aggression, then I don't see how we can deny that.

405
00:46:29,750 --> 00:46:36,830
This is also the case in which a state imposes an unjust economic structure leading to the death of lots of other people.

406
00:46:37,190 --> 00:46:43,100
The state. Sorry, there is no right to reply because we have like a really long list of views to get to where it goes next.

407
00:46:44,180 --> 00:46:47,300
Things are different when you go to war.

408
00:46:48,320 --> 00:46:54,410
There are several groups of people who may be liable to be killed. Some of them to a greater extent, and some of them to a lesser extent.

409
00:46:54,650 --> 00:46:57,920
Some of them to no extent at all. And they're not liable to be killed.

410
00:46:58,580 --> 00:47:04,760
The other states, government leaders, politicians and so on, I think they are very, very much liable.

411
00:47:04,770 --> 00:47:11,840
Right. The unjust side. And they are the first group which this ought to be eliminated if we have to do it group by group.

412
00:47:11,960 --> 00:47:19,520
Okay. At the bottom of the list, you'll have the babies there completely the in the seals, the ones who are unable to make up choices and so on.

413
00:47:20,210 --> 00:47:28,220
Somewhere in between you have civilians who are less involved and will go up and up and taxpayers somewhere close to the top of the list,

414
00:47:28,250 --> 00:47:33,350
not at the top of the list, but close to the top of the list will be the soldiers who are actually the ones

415
00:47:33,350 --> 00:47:39,350
who carry out the killing and do things and take arms and shoot people unjustly.

416
00:47:40,880 --> 00:47:48,770
They are the ones who will be killed in this war. Now, in your example, there's also a list of more or less culpable people.

417
00:47:49,070 --> 00:47:53,190
The more culpable people are, the, again, the politicians, the governments and so on.

418
00:47:53,200 --> 00:47:56,930
Next, international lawyer is a lobbying group and so on.

419
00:47:57,140 --> 00:48:03,330
Swiss bankers and so on and so on and so on. At the bottom of the list, there will be again, the infants, the imbeciles.

420
00:48:03,410 --> 00:48:11,510
So near the bottom of the list, you'll have the lower classes which most armies are constituted of.

421
00:48:12,080 --> 00:48:15,500
And they're the group which will be killed in this war. It's not the bankers.

422
00:48:17,780 --> 00:48:26,339
Pretty good reason in to in normal warfare soldiers where it's an economic killing, not to kill the soldiers.

423
00:48:26,340 --> 00:48:32,300
They aren't the ones doing the killing. So bite the bullet.

424
00:48:32,330 --> 00:48:37,970
Bite the bullet. Yeah, I know.

425
00:48:39,290 --> 00:48:43,010
But now not just trivialises your argument, because if you are going to say,

426
00:48:43,100 --> 00:48:48,140
well, we should really kill the bankers, then I do not see what the argument is.

427
00:48:48,350 --> 00:48:53,750
The assumption is that the bankers kill a lot of people. These people make it through economic means.

428
00:48:53,990 --> 00:48:57,860
These people may kill the bankers who kill them in self-defence. Yes, I agree.

429
00:49:00,360 --> 00:49:03,660
No. So, look, here's what I'm saying.

430
00:49:04,370 --> 00:49:14,030
So suppose we have two countries, Denmark and Norway. And in the first scenario, Denmark wages war against Norway, killing a lot of Norwegians.

431
00:49:15,780 --> 00:49:21,630
And a lot of times people vote for the government that pursues these aggressive policies.

432
00:49:22,530 --> 00:49:30,540
And I am assuming that given the kind of responsibility they have for the action of the country,

433
00:49:31,800 --> 00:49:40,890
they are liable to be killed in a defensive war by Norwegian troops so that soldiers or well, soldiers and civilians.

434
00:49:40,990 --> 00:49:44,730
My feeling is it might be the case that some kind of civilian immunity at stake

435
00:49:45,150 --> 00:49:51,270
such that Danish civilians cannot be targeted directly by Norwegian troops,

436
00:49:51,270 --> 00:49:55,650
but they can be killed as a side effect of targeting these competence.

437
00:49:56,400 --> 00:50:04,530
So I think that that's a point of departure. Here's a case where Danish civilians are likely to be killed, met with such example.

438
00:50:04,630 --> 00:50:15,300
So now Denmark imposes an unjust economic structure on Norway, and lots of Norwegians die as a result of poverty, and they do it by sea,

439
00:50:15,390 --> 00:50:27,330
giving incentives for Norwegian journalists to seek power and by making medicine that is needed, very expensive,

440
00:50:27,330 --> 00:50:33,620
such that we just won't be able to buy it, etc. Then I am saying that if you think that in the military scenario,

441
00:50:33,930 --> 00:50:42,600
assuming that we are talking about the same number of civilian deaths, etc., you think that Danish civilians are liable to kill?

442
00:50:42,750 --> 00:50:49,950
The same would be the case in in the unjust economic structure scenario.

443
00:50:51,390 --> 00:50:55,290
So I'm not just making a trivial thing about killing bankers.

444
00:50:55,300 --> 00:50:59,520
I am saying that if if you think that in the military scenario,

445
00:51:00,030 --> 00:51:09,720
there's some kind of liability to be killed on part of civilians or responsible for the actions of the government, then the same is the case here.

446
00:51:11,800 --> 00:51:21,130
That's true. Left to Helen. Okay, let's try and come face to face to face a face in 2005,

447
00:51:21,920 --> 00:51:30,700
since the one way in which people can contribute to the hope behind just doing it is through failing to take steps.

448
00:51:30,700 --> 00:51:38,840
That would mean weak national economies were protected against what he calls exogenous shocks from outside the national economy.

449
00:51:38,860 --> 00:51:46,660
But global financial crises, most of the things are failing to design a system that prevents economies suffering no chance.

450
00:51:47,930 --> 00:51:51,510
I think this is one way in which you can't be bothered. Now.

451
00:51:53,110 --> 00:51:56,350
Okay. Just how many times on the numbers here we have 18 million people.

452
00:51:57,310 --> 00:52:01,370
And I tell you, whether it does matter where we come from as a means of of action.

453
00:52:01,450 --> 00:52:10,300
But if I have one person, I kill them. I take it that yields I'm a basket will not yield a just cause on their part to kill me.

454
00:52:10,930 --> 00:52:18,270
Yeah. Here's your claim as saying with regard to this measure that POGO says produces world poverty.

455
00:52:18,840 --> 00:52:23,489
So if I'm about if I'm a banker and I'm hoping to institute a global financial

456
00:52:23,490 --> 00:52:28,320
system that fails to protect your economy adequately against this sort of a shock.

457
00:52:28,860 --> 00:52:35,780
Is your position that if one person will be killed by that, then there's a just cause to kill the banker for your position?

458
00:52:37,020 --> 00:52:39,380
Instead, the numbers don't matter again.

459
00:52:39,810 --> 00:52:47,190
So once we start killing, I think you wanna put an effort on a million people that result from that failure too, to allow people to shock.

460
00:52:47,400 --> 00:52:50,640
And that would be the kind of thing that would just cause war.

461
00:52:50,700 --> 00:52:56,969
So we should just because we're number sensitive on this account and is the way that you can trade

462
00:52:56,970 --> 00:53:02,370
off the seriousness of the shortfall in your duty against the number of people killed as a result.

463
00:53:02,910 --> 00:53:08,580
So if I fulfil 95% of what you do as a banker to make sure that we're not exactly shocks,

464
00:53:08,910 --> 00:53:12,030
but it check things quite heavily enough, my folks are at 5%.

465
00:53:12,660 --> 00:53:20,610
If a result of that is I don't know. Think so. And I don't know that you want this issue just cause we're not.

466
00:53:20,610 --> 00:53:28,290
Not just. Just them around. Just cause it is sensitive to both numbers and small variations in the degree of harm.

467
00:53:30,160 --> 00:53:34,270
Okay. So. So we have no time, basically.

468
00:53:34,270 --> 00:53:41,230
But, you know, you can you know, the questions have to be really in basically no time.

469
00:53:42,910 --> 00:53:57,100
I think you're making two points. The one is about the one is about failing to implement a system that cushions economists against external shocks.

470
00:53:57,110 --> 00:54:03,400
As that, I think here there is an issue about doing and allowing.

471
00:54:03,520 --> 00:54:11,260
So it seems we are more here, we are more taught, we are more likely to be talking about allowing harm rather than doing harm.

472
00:54:12,370 --> 00:54:18,430
And they have a short discussion of that particular mechanism in the paper.

473
00:54:18,760 --> 00:54:26,500
With regard to sensitivity to numbers, I think that the argument to make is neutral on this issue.

474
00:54:26,920 --> 00:54:30,900
So I think for all I am saying in this paper, I could go either way.

475
00:54:30,910 --> 00:54:39,610
But as a matter of fact, I would want an account of liability to being held in self defence that this.

476
00:54:42,450 --> 00:54:51,150
Well, yeah. Sensitive to numbers, but I think it's it's not something that I commit myself to have ended up in the paper.

477
00:54:52,870 --> 00:55:02,630
Mr. Who has just lost two of people who are dying of starvation to defend themselves.

478
00:55:03,090 --> 00:55:08,510
I don't know why you want to make herself so one way, but she made them all.

479
00:55:08,600 --> 00:55:14,960
Is you imply that the active missions distinction is really important in justifying that permission to hold.

480
00:55:15,950 --> 00:55:17,880
But that doesn't seem to be so obviously true.

481
00:55:17,900 --> 00:55:26,240
So if Andrew failed to rescue me from a pond, what he could do just at the cost of his suit, he refuses to do it.

482
00:55:26,270 --> 00:55:30,740
Now. I could kill him. And he would fall into the pond like you track myself out.

483
00:55:31,100 --> 00:55:36,260
But he's violated his duty. He could have easily rescued me just at the cost of his suit.

484
00:55:36,310 --> 00:55:40,430
And I can shoot him and put myself out so he could be liable to be killed.

485
00:55:40,730 --> 00:55:46,220
Even if it's just an admission of the failure of the way in which he made it is to demand the report.

486
00:55:46,550 --> 00:55:53,730
And then the other way with you implied that it's only permissible to kill people when they're liable to be killed.

487
00:55:53,770 --> 00:55:56,860
I think you mean intentionally, but that's not quite right.

488
00:55:56,960 --> 00:56:01,150
So there can be people who are not liable who still intentionally killed them.

489
00:56:01,160 --> 00:56:09,760
I brought your example earlier. Those are my cases where a person is not liable to be killed because it freezes on the road and then you do it.

490
00:56:09,770 --> 00:56:17,030
You pull them off so that everyone else to escape. So if people prevent me from setting up justice institutions, which will save all these lives.

491
00:56:17,540 --> 00:56:21,619
They're just preventing me from from doing what I have good reason to do.

492
00:56:21,620 --> 00:56:26,420
Save all the lives of of you just institutions. And all these powerful people get in my way.

493
00:56:26,930 --> 00:56:33,410
They do like to stop learning of this just so that I can go and save all these all these lives.

494
00:56:33,890 --> 00:56:40,850
But they may not be liable to be killed, but it was a massive liability, much very when it comes to how many people as a means to an end,

495
00:56:40,850 --> 00:56:44,170
it doesn't matter necessarily when it comes to all intentional killing.

496
00:56:48,140 --> 00:56:52,640
Okay. Sue points it. It happens all the time.

497
00:56:53,090 --> 00:57:02,270
You say something that you think is fairly radical, and then somebody comes along and they say something that is extreme.

498
00:57:04,460 --> 00:57:19,070
But I think I'm not I'm not denying in this paper that it would be permissible for poor countries to kill us in a redistributive war.

499
00:57:19,610 --> 00:57:24,950
Even if it were just a case that we simply failed our duty to assist them.

500
00:57:25,520 --> 00:57:31,450
I am simply not taking any standard that I am simply going along for the sake of argument with

501
00:57:31,910 --> 00:57:39,170
ascribing more significance to doing and allowing and morally significant does not in that way.

502
00:57:42,050 --> 00:57:45,860
Well, but I do not really taking a stand in what way?

503
00:57:45,860 --> 00:57:46,700
It is significant.

504
00:57:46,700 --> 00:57:57,860
I am just saying, assuming that PwC is right, we do harm people in the Third World by making them poor in a way that kills a lot of them.

505
00:57:58,310 --> 00:58:02,090
And what can they then permissible to do to us? What? What are we liable to?

506
00:58:02,450 --> 00:58:10,250
What kind of defensive actions? I'll be liable on that part. So I don't think I really need to disagree with anything.

507
00:58:11,380 --> 00:58:15,260
The premises imply this just means restrictions on consumption.

508
00:58:15,740 --> 00:58:22,280
And I didn't want to say the other thing as well, that it is only if you are liable to be killed that you can more easily be killed.

509
00:58:22,400 --> 00:58:27,050
And I'm not quite sure why you think that. I see something else in the paper.

510
00:58:27,240 --> 00:58:30,770
I thought that you thought that it was liability to ground with the promises killed in wars.

511
00:58:30,800 --> 00:58:35,210
Well, it is one of the things that gun permits ability to to kill you.

512
00:58:35,580 --> 00:58:38,840
Okay, gentlemen, back. All right. Behind you.

513
00:58:38,840 --> 00:58:44,959
Sorry. Okay. Is this from Frankfurt? I have a question on this futility point of the proportionality.

514
00:58:44,960 --> 00:58:48,980
I mean, Laura posited in a way which surprised me a bit.

515
00:58:49,500 --> 00:58:51,590
You said that if we do no wrong,

516
00:58:51,590 --> 00:58:59,320
the poor that the poor kind of are and this are from understandable reasons they attack us that somehow I could not have anything to say.

517
00:58:59,360 --> 00:59:07,430
I thought through. Other point is, if we run them and they have no chance of success, are they allowed to attack us?

518
00:59:07,670 --> 00:59:11,330
But then still on page 20, I have certain problems. In a way.

519
00:59:11,780 --> 00:59:16,500
You say that even if they do live and they are liable to attack.

520
00:59:16,520 --> 00:59:24,770
It might still not be permissible for the for the poor to, you know, to to attack the rich people who were wronging them in the first place.

521
00:59:25,010 --> 00:59:28,850
And you explain that by that you say and with reference to next judgement.

522
00:59:28,890 --> 00:59:32,990
McMahon They will only be just even if it is not morally justified.

523
00:59:33,020 --> 00:59:38,389
I thought it was in law that the problem is always the side effects collateral damage.

524
00:59:38,390 --> 00:59:42,020
You always kill innocent by doing a war.

525
00:59:42,290 --> 00:59:46,100
But when you I mean, the example of the Holocaust kind of clarified it.

526
00:59:46,310 --> 00:59:53,090
If I am attacked by ten persons, they want to kill me just because I for the fun of it.

527
00:59:53,510 --> 00:59:57,770
And I have the choice of defending myself. And I know I won't be successful either.

528
00:59:58,280 --> 01:00:04,470
Yeah, I am going to be successful if they are still able and I wouldn't want them if I would kill them.

529
01:00:04,490 --> 01:00:08,780
I mean, just have to defend my dignity, whatever. How can it not be permissible?

530
01:00:08,780 --> 01:00:14,120
It seems to me that, you know, if you do it because the consequences would be bad.

531
01:00:14,120 --> 01:00:19,069
So let's say 20 days would be would be missing afterwards.

532
01:00:19,070 --> 01:00:26,030
Whether they would be killed, if you kind of combined is a logical reason for consequentialist reasons, but not really combine them.

533
01:00:26,030 --> 01:00:33,830
But it is two paradigms in a way. I say I can't kill them because I do no wrong them, so I do not act impulsively.

534
01:00:34,040 --> 01:00:41,540
It might just be the case. It would be super arrogant. Or if I would say, okay, I save myself, I know I sacrifice myself.

535
01:00:41,780 --> 01:00:46,130
Perhaps they have their childhood so and they are really mean and they had a bad experience.

536
01:00:46,490 --> 01:00:49,730
So I not kill them. They have families and so on and so on.

537
01:00:50,090 --> 01:00:53,540
But if I would kill them, I wouldn't do anything wrong. So it is permissible.

538
01:00:53,540 --> 01:00:56,840
I would think there might be other reasons, but not professional permissibility.

539
01:00:57,140 --> 01:01:05,570
You should have a consequentialist paradigm you say is not permissible because it's ten lives against one, even if I discount for the culpability.

540
01:01:05,990 --> 01:01:09,650
So. But you seem to combine them. I don't know how exactly works.

541
01:01:10,670 --> 01:01:14,380
Okay. Here's something quite general.

542
01:01:14,900 --> 01:01:18,020
It might not specifically address the point you're making,

543
01:01:18,020 --> 01:01:30,260
but what I really want to say to make my argument is simply that the fact that if poor countries attack rich countries,

544
01:01:30,650 --> 01:01:35,660
a lot of bad things are going to happen in Muslim, in poor countries.

545
01:01:37,220 --> 01:01:44,360
I'm suggesting that this works differently in relation to more permissibility than it does from what it does in relation to more.

546
01:01:44,930 --> 01:01:49,100
Ability to arm. So I'm suggesting that it would be kind of artful.

547
01:01:50,000 --> 01:01:54,980
So if we assume an interpersonal setting would be kind of odd for rich people to say.

548
01:01:55,850 --> 01:02:06,740
We are not liable to be harmed by you. Because if you try to undo the unjust structure that we've imposed on you, we will ban you to help that.

549
01:02:06,770 --> 01:02:14,030
That doesn't seem to be a good argument for why rich people are not liable to be attacked by poor people.

550
01:02:14,330 --> 01:02:22,790
But it seems to be, well, from my perspective, a good argument for why it might be morally impermissible for poor people to attack rich people.

551
01:02:22,940 --> 01:02:25,520
So that is the kind of distinction I want to make.

552
01:02:27,170 --> 01:02:36,170
And precisely where the threshold in terms of bad consequences lies for when it would be impermissible for you to defend yourself.

553
01:02:36,860 --> 01:02:40,280
It is an issue that I don't think I really need to address here.

554
01:02:41,840 --> 01:02:49,879
For sure. Yeah, a couple of kind of points to some of the criteria that we have dismissed glosses over quickly.

555
01:02:49,880 --> 01:02:55,040
And I think we have completed both the difference between doing a plausible case that can be made,

556
01:02:55,040 --> 01:03:01,820
the importance of the losses of principle in terms of doing John Langer's got people where you can disagree along those lines.

557
01:03:02,660 --> 01:03:06,110
Secondly, a legitimate authority would have thought that.

558
01:03:08,590 --> 01:03:18,320
For any fruit to be just ready to be had to go to water for the redistributive reasons to state that you can't go to war but need to be legitimate.

559
01:03:18,340 --> 01:03:27,219
So a totalitarian state that's going to go to wage war for redistributive reasons and then meets the rest of the criteria,

560
01:03:27,220 --> 01:03:35,170
but then just the size of the kind of pocket money itself with the of the criteria so that the company can smother a smaller place.

561
01:03:35,980 --> 01:03:44,740
Third point kind of follows on from what everybody said was that I mean, I also worry that this is going to be going to be massively expensive.

562
01:03:44,740 --> 01:03:48,310
So it's not just the rich that impose that.

563
01:03:48,610 --> 01:03:54,830
I'm just like all of them poor. It's all for the poor. So I am thinking here about the security down by the River Nile.

564
01:03:54,940 --> 01:03:57,670
So the idea is that the security dilemma.

565
01:03:58,150 --> 01:04:03,940
So for those of you that don't know if the idea is the states are in this kind of anarchical system where they're

566
01:04:03,940 --> 01:04:08,980
against each other and they're constantly there's a constant threat that you're going to be attacked by another state.

567
01:04:11,250 --> 01:04:16,800
This means there's an arms race, so states have to continually arm themselves of more and more money involved.

568
01:04:17,220 --> 01:04:24,180
Now, if this is the case and they spend more money on arms, then they don't get to spend so much on how for such attacking the global problem.

569
01:04:24,270 --> 01:04:30,569
So you might think, for instance, that India and Pakistan and on your account would have some sort of just cause for

570
01:04:30,570 --> 01:04:34,950
attacking each other because they they're having they have to maintain nuclear weapons,

571
01:04:34,950 --> 01:04:40,970
be able to deter attack from each other rather than spending on tackling global poverty.

572
01:04:40,980 --> 01:04:50,639
So I do I do worry that. If you kind of it's just a far too permissive international system.

573
01:04:50,640 --> 01:04:54,870
So an international system where virtually any state, poor or rich,

574
01:04:54,870 --> 01:04:59,160
has got a just cause to wage war against another because they're kind of maintaining each other,

575
01:04:59,550 --> 01:05:03,390
maintaining every state in security in the security dilemma.

576
01:05:07,460 --> 01:05:09,830
The current situation. This is your last point.

577
01:05:09,830 --> 01:05:18,650
So the kind of situation I am addressing is one in which one party asymmetrically imposes an unjust structure on another party.

578
01:05:19,160 --> 01:05:29,060
The India Pakistan scenario you're describing is one in which two parties kind of cooperate, imposing and harmful structure on each other.

579
01:05:29,420 --> 01:05:35,260
So I'm not really certain that the view I have about this asymmetrical situation commitment to any

580
01:05:35,270 --> 01:05:43,100
view about the symmetrical situation in which this is what is going on between two countries.

581
01:05:43,310 --> 01:05:56,150
Okay. I guess I would suppose that I would say that it would be just for people living in Pakistan and India to violently remove their governments.

582
01:05:56,330 --> 01:06:03,890
If that was a way of making sure that economic means were used to fight poverty rather than.

583
01:06:05,460 --> 01:06:12,000
Bioweapons or something like that. With regard to legitimate authority,

584
01:06:13,440 --> 01:06:27,920
I mentioned there might be situations in which legitimate authority is a condition of being able to fight a just war.

585
01:06:27,930 --> 01:06:31,889
But I think that it's also pretty clear that there are situations in which legitimate

586
01:06:31,890 --> 01:06:37,680
authority is not necessary in order to fight the force of the Soviet Union.

587
01:06:38,490 --> 01:06:47,910
Second World War. The government wasn't legitimate, but it was fighting this war when it fought the Nazis.

588
01:06:48,390 --> 01:06:58,290
So I think it cannot be the case that it's always is that it's a necessary condition, whatever the circumstances, for fighting force.

589
01:07:01,240 --> 01:07:14,220
It's her question for Laura Papas to listen to to help without having any right under the sun.

590
01:07:14,230 --> 01:07:25,390
So we have a duty to help them, but they do not have the right to be helped or do they need a stronger rescue?

591
01:07:27,220 --> 01:07:30,450
This obviously coconut cream seems to be very interesting.

592
01:07:30,460 --> 01:07:43,270
And it it could change some of those fears of this really quickly here about this story of some people that we take as permissible,

593
01:07:43,930 --> 01:07:52,480
but according to this scale wouldn't be the second part of the question is they do not have the right to be helped,

594
01:07:52,660 --> 01:07:56,500
but they still expect to have to be held.

595
01:07:57,510 --> 01:08:00,690
So what's the status?

596
01:08:00,930 --> 01:08:07,110
Moreover, we are aware of that expectation that they may have.

597
01:08:07,980 --> 01:08:13,140
Okay. So on the first point,

598
01:08:13,650 --> 01:08:23,700
I took it that the particular moral analysis of the two society scenario one is for because of an actual catastrophe or something.

599
01:08:23,700 --> 01:08:26,730
And so the other which society has nothing to do with it because it is speaking.

600
01:08:27,360 --> 01:08:33,570
And I took it to be one that would follow from the premises of Kasper's argument.

601
01:08:33,580 --> 01:08:43,500
So I don't think that it would in some way change in passing, enumerating various features.

602
01:08:44,430 --> 01:08:56,440
And obviously there is a possibility that you have some kind of duty to help without any clear reason for the other party to have a right to be.

603
01:08:57,930 --> 01:09:02,250
If there is a right to be held, I would be forced to do that.

604
01:09:02,760 --> 01:09:08,999
So I talk about that on The View and maybe that Castro was proposing something like a right

605
01:09:09,000 --> 01:09:16,320
would only arise in cases of contribution where you sort of positively bring about the harm.

606
01:09:16,530 --> 01:09:18,210
That's the case I discussed. Exactly.

607
01:09:18,330 --> 01:09:30,860
So that's the I mean, if you think that what I suggested in some way involved a different overall moral framework than the one that Caspar proposed,

608
01:09:30,870 --> 01:09:36,689
I don't think that that's the case. I mean, the reason why I chose that particular example is precisely because I thought it was in line with

609
01:09:36,690 --> 01:09:42,810
his emphasis on the distinction between actions and omissions about the expectations of the poor.

610
01:09:43,410 --> 01:09:47,520
I'm not sure what the moral status of those expectations is.

611
01:09:47,820 --> 01:09:54,629
I cannot say that they had the same types of expectations that the expectations are assuming this moral framework as the expectations

612
01:09:54,630 --> 01:10:02,700
of those whose rights are being violated in the case in which some people are holding on to resources that actually belong to them.

613
01:10:03,030 --> 01:10:06,210
So I, you know, right of reply, we have to go.

614
01:10:06,680 --> 01:10:16,280
I am sorry. It's a couple of things in no right of reply to you is wrong.

615
01:10:16,800 --> 01:10:22,140
So I really like your first point.

616
01:10:22,140 --> 01:10:30,719
It seems to me the simplifying simplifying assumption that there are we is is suspicious.

617
01:10:30,720 --> 01:10:35,220
And I want think about Oxford College System.

618
01:10:36,360 --> 01:10:41,340
I ask people, I ask people, how is it organised?

619
01:10:42,620 --> 01:10:45,840
We don't know. I don't understand it.

620
01:10:46,290 --> 01:10:51,300
Is it efficient? It's it's the total opposite of efficiency.

621
01:10:51,630 --> 01:10:54,840
So why why is it isn't it changed?

622
01:10:56,310 --> 01:11:03,300
No one can. It's impossible to change. And the reason very seriously say it's impossible to change.

623
01:11:03,940 --> 01:11:10,740
Now, it's obvious that there are many people that contribute to this structure positively.

624
01:11:11,130 --> 01:11:18,000
They are agents of this structure. And still, I didn't help hold them responsible because they can change.

625
01:11:18,030 --> 01:11:22,470
They can change it. No, it's it's it happens also with the global structure.

626
01:11:22,980 --> 01:11:26,400
There is a race to the bottom in in terms of taxes.

627
01:11:26,820 --> 01:11:31,559
No, a leader lower the tax tax rate.

628
01:11:31,560 --> 01:11:41,580
And he said, look, I don't have I do not have choice because if I won't do that, then either my competitors, the opposition will do it.

629
01:11:41,760 --> 01:11:46,980
We will throw me out of power. We will do the same or another state will do so.

630
01:11:47,130 --> 01:11:57,210
We have a problem. We couldn't contribute to the unjust global structure and still we cannot we cannot prevent it because problems of coordination.

631
01:11:57,690 --> 01:12:03,900
So even if they buy it, it seems to me that this might be something that probably did not.

632
01:12:04,380 --> 01:12:14,790
It's not police fault, but your analysis fault, namely, he might be totally right in saying we impose we impose this,

633
01:12:15,630 --> 01:12:23,490
but no one of us can can change the situation because of problems of coordination.

634
01:12:23,790 --> 01:12:31,440
And that's why even if there is active causal contribution which involves agency,

635
01:12:32,220 --> 01:12:44,370
this does not imply just calls for the ideas that we which countries impose an unjust structure on poor countries.

636
01:12:44,370 --> 01:12:51,689
But they are not that they cannot they cannot avoid doing it because they don't know how to to they cannot collaborate because of system.

637
01:12:51,690 --> 01:12:56,520
Because they because they cannot collaborate. There is so many so many cases of it here.

638
01:12:56,580 --> 01:12:59,310
I think it makes a difference whether you say even in Oxford,

639
01:12:59,850 --> 01:13:07,980
they cannot collaborate in order to change the the system, which everyone agrees that it is, that it is inefficient.

640
01:13:08,790 --> 01:13:13,500
But I think it makes a difference whether they are saying we know what we should do,

641
01:13:14,040 --> 01:13:20,950
but we can't cooperating in doing it because they all refrain from doing what would be needed for them to cooperate.

642
01:13:21,750 --> 01:13:25,660
And the case where they say, well, we all have the best of wills,

643
01:13:26,160 --> 01:13:31,500
but the fact is we do not know what we should do in order to avoid what we should do.

644
01:13:31,500 --> 01:13:43,620
And in and I guess the Oxford scenario, that might be the latter case, the former case, I think it is not enough to get rich countries off the hook.

645
01:13:44,280 --> 01:13:49,110
So it would be like 20 high of killers each cooperating about killing someone.

646
01:13:49,440 --> 01:13:52,530
And then you say, look, why are you killing this guy?

647
01:13:52,530 --> 01:13:56,960
And well, we could refrain from killing this guy, but that would require quite.

648
01:13:57,730 --> 01:14:04,860
But we don't do it. So no one is to blame. But I think poverty actually makes some.

649
01:14:06,780 --> 01:14:09,809
Well, I can remember I'm saying assuming that pockets.

650
01:14:09,810 --> 01:14:13,920
Right. I'm not saying that in some instances, but I'm assuming for the sake of argument that it is right.

651
01:14:14,490 --> 01:14:24,210
But I think at this point he would point to some proposals we have like this $3 tax on each barrel of oil being traded,

652
01:14:24,600 --> 01:14:33,960
or this incentive fund for developing medicines to address diseases that are primarily that promotes primarily in and on poor people.

653
01:14:34,350 --> 01:14:42,180
I think he have some proposals as to how we undo some of these bad effects of the global structural countries analysis.

654
01:14:42,620 --> 01:14:45,960
We can't just plausibly say we don't know what to do.

655
01:14:48,060 --> 01:14:52,780
Gentleman in the back. Yes, you should listen.

656
01:14:55,410 --> 01:14:58,470
It was about me. They have to remind me.

657
01:14:58,860 --> 01:15:03,360
What exactly is the point?

658
01:15:03,360 --> 01:15:12,570
I guess is that by virtue of the very fact of extreme duress or absolute scarcity.

659
01:15:16,220 --> 01:15:19,480
Stretchers for people who are under those conditions.

660
01:15:20,690 --> 01:15:27,120
Yeah, that was one of the inspirations behind it. Yeah. I just wanted to maybe critique that briefly.

661
01:15:28,430 --> 01:15:33,919
I think that one of the reasons that we have World Series is just a symbol for

662
01:15:33,920 --> 01:15:40,070
it is not just to say like what conditions are people liable to be attacked,

663
01:15:40,400 --> 01:15:46,940
for example, it's not just because they do X, they can be attacked, but it's because they x.

664
01:15:48,200 --> 01:15:58,880
It seems as though like if you release people from this kind of moral structure, it leaves open the question who they can who they could attack.

665
01:15:59,030 --> 01:16:03,020
Right. So I guess maybe more specifically.

666
01:16:05,470 --> 01:16:11,830
If we release them from this consideration in the West or in rich countries.

667
01:16:13,000 --> 01:16:19,810
Created this and justice. Then it is like.

668
01:16:20,740 --> 01:16:26,020
We can't specify who they can look better just by virtue.

669
01:16:31,200 --> 01:16:34,920
Super quick. So good point.

670
01:16:34,930 --> 01:16:41,530
And I mean, I won't have time in the comments, but I want to say also something later on to Jeff in response to what he was saying,

671
01:16:41,530 --> 01:16:44,710
because I think you hit on some important issues.

672
01:16:46,330 --> 01:16:50,110
I do see that as being a problematic implication of the thought.

673
01:16:50,500 --> 01:16:55,100
But on the other hand, so I haven't reached reflective equilibrium on this is just an intuition.

674
01:16:55,120 --> 01:16:57,850
Another couple of thoughts I still have to balance and properly bad.

675
01:16:59,600 --> 01:17:07,030
But the thing is, on the other hand, so what you're suggesting is we would be in some sort of Hobbesian kind of state of nature.

676
01:17:07,270 --> 01:17:08,080
And that was this idea.

677
01:17:08,320 --> 01:17:16,570
And I'm wondering whether, well, maybe under those conditions, if they are in such a situation of extreme scarcity, maybe that's the way we should.

678
01:17:17,290 --> 01:17:22,570
I mean, part of me thinks that that's not so implausible and part of me thinks I wouldn't want to go down that line.

679
01:17:22,990 --> 01:17:27,490
So I think I'm I'm still in a dilemma here. But, yeah, that's all I can say.

680
01:17:28,480 --> 01:17:36,490
There are four questions left, and I think we should take them in two groups of two and particularly separate just on the compound.

681
01:17:38,230 --> 01:17:49,240
So I wanted to make two brief comments. The first one was in relation to this is this point before where you say that it seems strange that somebody

682
01:17:49,240 --> 01:17:55,240
should make himself not liable to be killed because he threatens to make the cost of attacking him so high.

683
01:17:55,870 --> 01:18:01,750
Right, that the rich can make themselves not liable by making the costs of attacking very high.

684
01:18:02,650 --> 01:18:06,970
And I know it seems like it's also strange that they should be able to make it morally impermissible.

685
01:18:07,810 --> 01:18:13,420
I mean, they can clearly make it irrational for us to for this to happen.

686
01:18:13,960 --> 01:18:20,560
But the argument by which they the reason that you have to say that, why should they be able to make themselves not liable to attack?

687
01:18:21,070 --> 01:18:23,040
I think it applies exactly the same reason.

688
01:18:23,410 --> 01:18:29,620
Reason applies to why should they be able to make it moral and potentially lethal to attack them just by going, we're going to take action.

689
01:18:29,620 --> 01:18:32,770
If you attack us, then you're not allowed to do that.

690
01:18:33,070 --> 01:18:35,680
So I think the reasoning I'm not sure why the reasoning would be different.

691
01:18:37,210 --> 01:18:44,050
The other point was I thought that really we should be talking about terrorism and crime here,

692
01:18:44,830 --> 01:18:48,760
not for any sort of big, big sort of methodological reasons,

693
01:18:48,760 --> 01:18:53,650
but just because the argument you can kind of get out of the the very strong

694
01:18:54,250 --> 01:18:57,879
revisionist implications of your argument in the context of war by saying,

695
01:18:57,880 --> 01:19:00,940
well, it won't be effective. And of course, too,

696
01:19:01,130 --> 01:19:11,650
damage terrorism is if they can use terrorist attacks in order to achieve these things as far as those both necessary and in the interpersonal case.

697
01:19:12,460 --> 01:19:18,170
So I'm I'm going on holiday to India and I've got my camera around my neck and I start my day.

698
01:19:18,190 --> 01:19:24,340
And this attack went down in the whole of Africa last year with about £4,000 worth of equipment on my back.

699
01:19:24,640 --> 01:19:32,710
And maybe I would go past some people in the street who who might be their families might be dying as a result of the global economic order.

700
01:19:33,110 --> 01:19:41,799
And so what I want to know is if your argument has the same implications in those interpersonal cases where either they they robbed me,

701
01:19:41,800 --> 01:19:47,380
kill me properly, or even just Rodney turned my camera and said it all, and one of the kids is going to die.

702
01:19:48,970 --> 01:19:55,480
We are going to have this strong implication. Are you prepared to accept strong revisionist implications in those cases where you

703
01:19:55,480 --> 01:19:59,440
can't really get out of it by saying it won't be effective or it'll be disproportionate?

704
01:20:03,070 --> 01:20:15,100
To support his comments or for moderating that comes from you, starting with a case of military aggression.

705
01:20:15,730 --> 01:20:27,400
I think that those are cases where it's relatively clear what the demand of people who are going to go to war in response to aggression.

706
01:20:28,260 --> 01:20:35,700
It's basically just withdraw his troops or stop whatever this military exercise is.

707
01:20:36,090 --> 01:20:40,330
And I think your position would be. I'm fine.

708
01:20:40,340 --> 01:20:49,380
Just emphasising that the. A parallel kind of demand in the economic case can arise.

709
01:20:49,410 --> 01:20:54,420
You just mentioned a couple what you said about the global resources dividend, that drugs payments.

710
01:20:54,750 --> 01:21:01,260
I think it would be helpful if you anticipated poor people warning the rich if you

711
01:21:01,260 --> 01:21:09,660
do not estimate how much better off your made by this existing unjust world order.

712
01:21:10,710 --> 01:21:14,140
You'd have to contribute under some just reforms.

713
01:21:15,520 --> 01:21:20,590
And then can try to contribute some to effective poverty relief.

714
01:21:21,550 --> 01:21:29,140
Then you ask it wrongly, and we think that renders you liable to certain forms of aggression.

715
01:21:31,220 --> 01:21:35,750
But I find that a way of defending guilty.

716
01:21:35,810 --> 01:21:41,860
But the other thought is. You see, why not start at a different point?

717
01:21:42,460 --> 01:21:49,870
Why not start with a thought? Redistributive civil war is clearly permissible.

718
01:21:51,450 --> 01:22:01,610
So when Castro and his comrades went to Cuba and undermined the Batista regime, I don't think that was wrong.

719
01:22:03,140 --> 01:22:10,050
But that has all these kind of problems. It's not clear exactly how the regime was killing people.

720
01:22:10,070 --> 01:22:21,710
What they were doing was imposing a set of economic institutions which had a relatively high level of absolute deprivation associated with it,

721
01:22:22,130 --> 01:22:27,980
compared with the set of institutions which was ban imposed by the Castro.

722
01:22:29,500 --> 01:22:33,910
But it seems to be clearly permissible in that case.

723
01:22:34,330 --> 01:22:39,790
The Civil War was permissible. So you. So why not say the same thing?

724
01:22:39,940 --> 01:22:46,300
That is not so. When we move to the international case, there is not enough difference.

725
01:22:46,900 --> 01:22:50,240
So the economic redistribution is on the ground for.

726
01:22:55,050 --> 01:22:58,050
Okay. I think you can do.

727
01:22:58,350 --> 01:23:08,040
Andrews, Cummins very quickly. So I just thank you for some helpful suggestions of a group of us with regard to this coming.

728
01:23:10,210 --> 01:23:18,570
Well, your last point about what can be done for you when you travel in Africa, I think it is a great challenge and I have to think more about it.

729
01:23:20,460 --> 01:23:21,960
But no two things.

730
01:23:22,950 --> 01:23:33,300
I could say that if you consider the military aggression scenario, if I could have the view that there is some kind of civilian immunity.

731
01:23:34,080 --> 01:23:40,950
So you voted for your government. Your government participates in this military aggression against poor countries.

732
01:23:41,280 --> 01:23:51,780
Does that mean when you travel in some of these poor countries, any poor person in that country whose plight has somehow been worsened by military

733
01:23:51,780 --> 01:23:55,230
aggression by your country could do whatever he or she wants to do with you.

734
01:23:56,010 --> 01:24:02,280
I could hold the view that that is not the case. You cannot be liable to that sort of harm.

735
01:24:03,810 --> 01:24:08,150
And I could say the same about the poverty scenario as well.

736
01:24:08,160 --> 01:24:15,510
So I think nothing, nothing in my view, commitment to saying that it would be permissible to do this.

737
01:24:15,810 --> 01:24:19,620
And also, I think this your example is this further issue.

738
01:24:20,160 --> 01:24:33,300
So suppose I address against someone and so I try to shoot someone and this person can.

739
01:24:37,020 --> 01:24:45,750
This person can appropriate a kidney of mine to save his own life, but that has nothing to do with the threat and person to this person.

740
01:24:46,140 --> 01:24:53,190
You might hold the view that even though it would be permissible to kill me in defence against my time to shoot this person,

741
01:24:53,610 --> 01:25:00,509
it would not, at the same time be permissible to take away my kidney to address a different threat to life.

742
01:25:00,510 --> 01:25:07,229
And I suppose one could say the same in the scenario you imagine in Africa that you could

743
01:25:07,230 --> 01:25:15,299
perhaps be attacked to address the threat to pose through the country's governance structure.

744
01:25:15,300 --> 01:25:22,440
But that doesn't mean that anything that you can be deprived of that will help poor people can be done together.

745
01:25:22,950 --> 01:25:25,320
That would be at least a possible position.

746
01:25:26,790 --> 01:25:33,880
And with regard to the asymmetry between liability and permissibility, that's an issue I have to think more about.

747
01:25:33,900 --> 01:25:42,150
But the thought was that permissibility depends on harm in a way that flight ability doesn't serve you not being wrong.

748
01:25:42,630 --> 01:25:48,480
If you bring about a situation in which you set up a course,

749
01:25:48,480 --> 01:25:55,360
a scenario where a lot of bad things will happen if anybody does something to you that cannot affect your rights.

750
01:25:56,160 --> 01:25:59,370
Whereas permissibility relates differently to harm.

751
01:25:59,370 --> 01:26:03,470
But I. I need to think about this by now.

752
01:26:04,410 --> 01:26:09,030
A lot of questions. This is starting to get five points long.

753
01:26:11,320 --> 01:26:13,270
Yes, you have the latter over.

754
01:26:13,600 --> 01:26:29,440
Margaret goes along with an idealistic proposal for my formative years that were clearly contribution is much broader and contribution.

755
01:26:31,410 --> 01:26:38,820
Captured, locked away in home. I may be attached to your action, but killing seems to be more specific.

756
01:26:39,580 --> 01:26:44,310
So. And the problem with this is that it starts out.

757
01:26:45,640 --> 01:26:52,570
Finding some examples refocuses our intuitions that that certain things that I have very

758
01:26:52,570 --> 01:26:58,629
stringent duties attached to it and be like driving ordinary person or whatever to

759
01:26:58,630 --> 01:27:08,050
reduce character cases of doing harm in order to solve for stringent demand in containing

760
01:27:08,050 --> 01:27:13,570
these types of killing off or contributing to harm and then control this period,

761
01:27:13,990 --> 01:27:17,230
which includes a lot of other types of contributions to the.

762
01:27:18,930 --> 01:27:24,809
Art is so human. And the problem with that is that we do not share the intuition that all this

763
01:27:24,810 --> 01:27:28,550
other type of contribution to harm has the same normative characteristics,

764
01:27:28,560 --> 01:27:33,120
that WikiLeaks is some kind of cheating going on.

765
01:27:33,150 --> 01:27:45,790
I have the feeling for the a woman who will bring this dispute, compartmentalise it and kill it.

766
01:27:47,010 --> 01:27:50,400
So you kill. I did. Yes, of course I did.

767
01:27:50,880 --> 01:27:54,750
Did you know how to contribute?

768
01:27:54,990 --> 01:27:58,110
Yes. Maybe you can say who contributed what.

769
01:27:58,710 --> 01:28:07,140
So it's a much broader concept. So as you were doing this, he was able to get a lot of people agreeing that we contribute to global poverty.

770
01:28:10,060 --> 01:28:25,780
But we do not kill them. And if only the killing, the narrow influences or contributions we have to hope is not only to countries established,

771
01:28:25,880 --> 01:28:29,560
obviously innovative and useful for the food security in.

772
01:28:32,040 --> 01:28:38,100
This broader notion contribution that you have had with the central government of the capital.

773
01:28:41,770 --> 01:28:45,040
Okay. So late in day, so I won't have time to answer. Well.

774
01:28:48,460 --> 01:28:52,990
Well, I think I. One issue is, why does not target use the word killing?

775
01:28:53,200 --> 01:28:57,310
And I mean, that's not really much interest of much interest.

776
01:28:58,300 --> 01:29:00,340
But this, of course, is the interesting issue,

777
01:29:00,340 --> 01:29:11,440
the interesting substantive issue of whether the kind of whether we are talking about contributing to the death of poor people in a way that is,

778
01:29:11,920 --> 01:29:15,730
morally speaking, very different from if we killed them directly.

779
01:29:17,560 --> 01:29:28,990
And I have this domestic example in the paper, which is supposed to be a domestic analogy to the incentive problem in relation to dictators.

780
01:29:29,650 --> 01:29:34,360
So suppose that you say to this government and if you take over this family farm,

781
01:29:34,360 --> 01:29:40,240
this is democratically one family farm, we will buy the products that you produce.

782
01:29:40,960 --> 01:29:45,220
And now the government has an incentive to take over the farm and does so.

783
01:29:45,670 --> 01:29:49,329
And the question then is, could the people living on this family farm,

784
01:29:49,330 --> 01:29:56,980
could they defend themselves by killing the person who gives the incentive to the government to take over the farm?

785
01:29:57,700 --> 01:30:05,019
And even if you think that it is somehow this morally wrong to give an incentive to a government to take over this family

786
01:30:05,020 --> 01:30:11,740
farm than to directly kill some of the members of the family farm rather than give the government the incentive to do it,

787
01:30:12,610 --> 01:30:15,970
you must still think that it would be permissible to kill the person.

788
01:30:16,780 --> 01:30:22,390
Sorry. We have been notoriously, you know, over over time.

789
01:30:24,210 --> 01:30:25,020
Okay. Thanks a lot.