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?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is The main objection to progressive payment rates for environmental protection is that it may be seen as unfair to burden wealthy industrialized nations with a disproportionate share of the costs. Critics may argue that it is unjust to penalize countries that have achieved economic success and development through their own efforts.

Shue responds to this objection by emphasizing the principles of fairness and equity. He argues that the wealthy industrialized nations have gained their economic advantage, in part, by imposing environmental costs on other countries without their consent. Therefore, it is only fair that they bear the burden of correcting these inequalities. Additionally, Shue points out that the principle of radical inequality requires that everyone be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living, and this includes the responsibility of wealthy nations to contribute to global environmental protection.

Whether Shue's response is convincing or not depends on one's perspective. Some may find his argument compelling, as it is based on principles of fairness and justice. Others may disagree, believing that progressive payment rates unfairly penalize successful nations and do not take into account the efforts and sacrifices they have made to achieve their economic status. Ultimately, the question of whether Shue's response is convincing is a matter of individual interpretation and ethical beliefs.