Quiz

Question 1 (1 point)

Saved
How does Pogge's argument differ from Singer's argument for aid?

Question 1 options:
Pogge doesn't want to change the way people think about poverty, but Singer does.

Pogge emphasizes that the affluent have violated the negative duty of non-harm with respect to the global
poor, whereas Singer's argument doesn't depend on the violation of any negative duty.

Pogge thinks that global poverty can be eradicated, but Singer does not.

Pogge doesn't agree with Singer's idea that "death and suffering" are bad.

Question 2 (1 point)

Saved
Why does Pogge offer a number of arguments for his conclusion?

Question 2 options:
He does so in order to accommodate the fact that there is disagreement about the basic moral framework
relevant to questions of justice.

He does so because each additional argument for the conclusion makes it more likely that the conclusion
is true.

Most of his arguments are probably flawed, but he hopes that at least one of them is right.

He does so in order to give a complete list of the arguments for his conclusion.

Question 3 (1 point)
Which of the following is NOT one of the 3 basic arguments Pogge
provides for his conclusion?

Question 3 options:
The argument from violation of Lockean rights

The argument from the violation of human rights

The argument from historical injustice

The argument from the existence of a global institutional order

Question 4 (1 point)

Which of the following is an element of the global institutional order as

Pogge understand it?

Question 4 options:
the World Trade Organization

the United Nations

All of the above

the International Monetary Fund

Question 5 (1 point)

On Pogge's view, what is the relationship of currently existing affluent

persons to historical injustice of the 16th through 19th century, a
relationship in virtue of which they violate the duty to not harm the
global poor?

Question 5 options:
 The currently affluent have actively participated in this injustice.

The currently affluent sustain this historical injustice and benefit from it.

Question 6 (1 point)

What idea motivates the Lockean argument that the currently affluent
have harmed the global poor?

Question 6 options:
Each person has a moral claim to an equal share of the world's resources.

Each political society has a moral to an equal share of the world's resources.

Each person has a moral claim that valid agreements be upheld.

Each person has a moral claim to the product of their labor.

Question 7 (1 point)

How might David Schmidtz respond to Pogge's Lockean argument?

Question 7 options:
If you create X, you own X.

The commons before appropriation is not a zero sum.

The economic problem is how to efficiently allocate resources given incomplete information.

There is no uniquely best institution of property for every situation.

Question 8 (1 point)
Why does Pogge think that the global poor couldn't have rationally
agreed to a global institutional order under which they have virtually no
property in the world's resources?

Question 8 options:
The global poor are worse off than they would have been in the State of Nature.

Current arrangements are unjust, and rational agreements can be made under unjust conditions.

The global poor have benefit greatly from the explosion of economic growth under capitalism.

Under current conditions, most of the global poor have not been able to fully develop the capacities
necessary for making any agreement.

Question 9 (1 point)

According to Pogge, how have rich countries acted wrongly in the WTO?

Question 9 options:
They have insisted that the WTO require that poorer countries pay their own expenses at WTO meetings.

They have insisted that the WTO permit high tariffs on agricultural goods from poor countries.

They have insisted that the WTO prohibit all agricultural subsidies, and this has hurt farmers in poorer
countries.

They have insisted that the WTO agricultural subsidies to their own farmers, and this has hurt farmers in
poorer countries.

Question 10 (1 point)

If Pogge is right, how should we view Bill and Melinda Gates?

Question 10 options:
 As persons whose wealth gives them great power, and so great moral responsibility to do something to
bring an end to global poverty

As members of a criminal class who has done great harm to the global poor

Submit Quiz2 of 10 questions saved