Deck 50: Henry Shue

Question 1

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue claims that wealthy industrialized countries should bear the greatest cost for protecting the environment. What is Shue's argument for this claim? Is his argument convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue considers three counterarguments to the first principle of equity. Does Shue respond adequately to these counterarguments in your view? Why or why not?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-What is the main objection to progressive payment rates and how does Shue respond to it? Is Shue's response convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-How does Shue defend the third principle of equity? Is his defense compelling? Why or why not?

Question 5

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue believes that his three principles of fairness are commonsensical. Do you agree with him on this? Why or why not?

Question 6

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Do you agree with Shue that progressive payment rates do not necessarily undercut incentives? Why or why not?

Question 7

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-What are some of the practical implications of Shue's view? How could wealthy countries go about putting Shue's principles into practice?

Question 8

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, wealthy industrialized countries should contribute __________ to the costs of environmental protection.

A) nothing.
B) less than developing countries.
C) the same as developing countries.
D) more than developing countries.

Question 9

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, the three principles of equity that he discusses:

A) are commonsensical.
B) depend on controversial philosophical theories of justice.
C) give rise to different conclusions.
D) none of the above.

Question 10

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, what lawyers and diplomats call equity is close to what is ordinary people mean by:

A) equality.
B) fairness.
C) morality.
D) dignity.

Question 11

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue assumes that it is equitable for __________ to be distributed equally.

A) wealth.
B) dignity and respect.
C) the costs of environmental protection.
D) scarce natural resources.

Question 12

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to the first principle of equity, those who have had costs unfairly imposed on them by others have:

A) the right to sue the offending party.
B) had their legal rights violated by the offending party.
C) the entitlement to demand that the offending party bear the burden of redressing these costs.
D) all of the above.

Question 13

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, some people object to the first principle of equity by claiming that:

A) developing countries benefited from the economic and industrial policies of wealthy countries.
B) the costs imposed by wealthy countries were unintentional.
C) members of wealthy countries should not be held responsible for the actions of their forebearers.
D) all of the above.

Question 14

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-The second principle of equity states that when several parties are engaged in a common project:

A) everyone should contribute equally.
B) those with the most resources should contribute most.
C) everyone should contribute voluntarily.
D) contributions should be based on need.

Question 15

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue argues that flat rate payment systems:

A) are misleadingly fair.
B) are too abstract.
C) ignore whether contributors can afford their contributions.
D) all of the above.

Question 16

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, some people object to progressive payment rates on the alleged grounds that they:

A) create disincentive effects.
B) are unfair.
C) are inegalitarian.
D) all of the above.

Question 17

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-The third principle of equity assumes an existing state of:

A) equality.
B) material scarcity.
C) radical inequality.
D) none of the above.

Question 18

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-As Shue uses the term, "radical inequality" refers to conditions between parties in which:

A) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently.
B) some parties have more than enough to live decently and some have much more than enough.
C) some parties have less than enough to live decently.
D) all of the above.

Question 19

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to the third principle of equity, resources should be allocated such that:

A) everyone is guaranteed an equal share of total resources.
B) everyone is guaranteed an adequate minimum of resources.
C) any inequalities are to the benefit of everyone.
D) none of the above.

Question 20

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, the main beneficiaries of the third principle of equity are:

A) developing economies.
B) multinational corporations
C) children.
D) all of the above.

Question 21

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, some object to the third principle of equity on the alleged grounds that:

A) we have no positive moral requirements to help citizens of other countries.
B) it will cause birth rates to drop.
C) it will undermine incentives.
D) all of the above.

Question 22

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, the reasons for the second and third principles of equity are fundamentally the same, namely:

A) to eliminate an existing inequality.
B) to prevent an existing inequality from becoming worse.
C) to ensure complete egalitarianism for all.
D) all of the above.

Question 23

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, an unequal distribution of goods can never be equitable.

Question 24

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-For Shue, questions of economic efficiency and questions of equity are essentially interchangeable.

Question 25

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-For Shue, every person is entitled to equal dignity and respect.

Question 26

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, persons or parties should not be held responsible for damage they did not do themselves.

Question 27

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, progressive rates of contribution of the sort recommended by the second principle of equity can reduce incentive effects.

Question 28

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-A flat rate of contribution is the fairest possible way of arranging payments according to Shue.

Question 29

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, the third principle of equity assumes a state of radical inequality.

Question 30

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-According to Shue, a guaranteed minimum should provide no more than the basic necessities of physical survival.

Question 31

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-Shue argues that it is unfair to expect people to help maintain a guaranteed adequate minimum in a society other than their own.

Question 32

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality
In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial.
The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states.
-On Shue's view, an inequality can be unjustified either because of how it came about or because of how extreme it currently is.