As a result of globalization, the incidence of global income inequality has soared. While as a whole the world may be getting wealthier, the gap between the affluent and the poor is becoming even more drastic. Those living in poverty find themselves dealing with the ramifications which include restricted access to essential resources, unequal opportunity to education, and getting the “short end of the stick’ in terms of political and social policies. Increasing income inequality is an outcome of globalization, and the consequences are morally wrong and extremely unethical.
Resources:
Income inequality allows for people under the poverty line to go without basic resources essential for survival. Hundreds of millions of human beings cannot afford food, water, or access to improved sanitation. Hunger is the number one cause of death in the world, killing more than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined.[1] According to the World Food Programme, 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat, and data from the Center for Disease Control indicates that 780 million people do not have access to clean water. Additionally, 2.5 billion people in the world lack access to improved sanitation, a startling 35 percent of the total population.[2]
This issue should be addressed because this is a matter of the right to life. If, according to the moral argument of universalism, all humans are inherently worth the same then all people lives are worth the same. Everyone has an equal right to be alive. If everyone has equal inherent worth, then no person’s life should be threatened due to lack of basic resources essential for survival. Is it extremely unethical for some people to be able to fill their water bottle up countless times a day and for others to die because they do not have access to food and water at all.
Education:
Unequal access to education is another detrimental effect of income inequality. Those children in low-income areas and below the poverty line are at a disadvantage and are not receiving the right support or nurturing environment to reach their intellectual, social, and economic potential. Many children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds are forced to abandon their education as a result of health problems or in order to work and provide support for their family. According to the nonprofit Humanium, “factors linked to poverty such as unemployment, illness and the illiteracy of parents, multiply the risk of non-schooling and the drop-out rate of a child by 2.”[3] In other words, basic realities of those living below the global poverty line make a child twice as likely to drop out of school and not complete their education, thus perpetuating this vicious cycle. An unfair distribution of opportunity stems from this unequal access to education.
According to the consequentialist moral argument if an action has consequences that are morally wrong then that actual is also morally wrong. In this case the action in question is not having access to education due of issues of inequality, and the consequences are unequal opportunity leading to further income inequality. According to an article published by the Berkley Center at Georgetown University, “education can reproduce an unequal society if it is not offered equally to all”.[4] The consequence of having an unequal society is morally wrong because it allows for some people (who, as previously established, are all inherently worth the same) to suffer while others prosper. Therefore, the lack of access to education is also morally wrong and should be addressed.
Injustice in Policies:
An unequal society plagued by income inequality is one that perpetuates social injustice in its political and economic policies. Those who are not reaping the benefits of globalization, those who are impoverished, are unhappy and not equally represented. A study published by the Washington Post examined 12 West European democracies and found that political parties in European democracies displayed a tendency to disproportionately respond to political attitudes of affluent groups.[5] In other words, levels of economic inequality correlate with levels of political inequality. This is problematic for a few reasons, specifically that any policies directed at promoting the interests of the affluent are likely to further intensify the political influence of these groups, as well as citizens who are not members of the affluent group may become less engaged with politics as a result. If those who have political influence gain even more control, then governmental policies could only benefit the elite. If those who are not affluent become even less engaged in politics, then these people will not get a say in how policies affect them. In fact, they might not even be aware of the injustices happening because they are so disconnected. Both of these processes can lead this inequality to proliferate.
According to an article published by the Berkley Center, “an extreme income gap in society and between societies is alarming because it could erode social cohesion.”[6] The article continues on by saying that “a reasonable degree of social cohesion is needed so that a society (and a world) can function, and for people to have the chance to increase their opportunities in life.”[7] Following the moral deontic argument, the intrinsic feature of “social cohesion” is always a moral good. Therefore, if income inequality affects political and economic policies in a way that disrupts social cohesion, then income inequality is morally bad. The action of creating policies that favor affluent groups is always unethical.
Globalization has produced a large gap in income that is extremely unethical, morally wrong, and getting bigger. There must be steps taken to minimize these detrimental impacts of income inequality.
[1] World Food Programme. “What causes hunger?” Food Programme Fighting Hunger Worldwide, 2010.
[2] Global WASH Facts | Global Water, Sanitation and Hygiene | Healthy Water | CDC.
[3] “Right to Education: Situation around the World.” n.d. Humanium • We Make Children’s Rights Happen
[4] Poverty and Inequality: Our Ethical Challenges. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/poverty-and-inequality-our-ethical-challenges
[5] Ezrow, L. (2015, April 5). Do economic inequality and political inequality go together? Washington Post.
[6] Ezrow, L. (2015, April 5)
[7] Ezrow, L. 2015, April 5)