Rating: 
Summary: Questionable Assumptions
Review: Clearly, the nations of the world are moving away from traditional sovereignty towards greater mutual dependency. That much is obvious. However, what shape this process will eventually take is not so obvious. In broad outline, Singer's book attempts to lay out the ethical foundations for a more just, humane, and sustainable global process. Of course, it's hard to argue with that, given so many present trends away from those laudable goals. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to take issue with Singer's consequentialist approach to these problems, as I'm sure ethicisists other than Singer will do. But that academic issue aside, the book's main value lies in the author's penetrating analysis of the WTO and its hypocritical foundations which he locates in the conflict between "process" and "product". The fact that the conflict is buried in the organization's misleadingly titled "10 Common Misunderstandings About the WTO" makes for an amusing irony. That section alone is worth the read. There are other less concentrated nuggets scattered throughout, including some shrewd and telling observations on the work of the renowned John Rawls.
My reservation is with the book's safely liberal framework. When all is said and done, Singer's prescriptions raise no issues beyond those of market reforms (reform of WTO), greater world democracy, and more generous foreign aid. In short, there is nothing there that the liberal wing of the Democratic party could not at least pay lip service to. Nowhere does his work suggest that the barriers confronting a more humane and sustainable planet are structural and non-negotiable, that wealth and power may have to be seriously redistributed, or that the problems may be more systemic than piece-meal. I don't fault him for not writing a work on political economy where these issues could be thematically addressed; I do fault the book overall for structuring its discussion around these tacit and constricting assumptions. For a thinker who has fearlessly exposed himself to insult and ridicule by championing the rights of all of Earth's creatures, I know this is a sincere work. Still, I have the impression that One World could have been written by a hundred ethicists much less distinguished than the good professor. All in all, the book is hardly an extention of his other ground-breaking work, and, in that sense, amounts to a disappointment. For those wishing a more challenging ethical approach to globalization from a philosopher of similar stature, check out Ted Honderich's After the Terror.
Rating: 
Summary: clarity of thought
Review: Even though Singer doesn't provide a completely balance view of globalization, this will be a very useful book. What I found most helpful was his clearly laid out objectives and values. Instead of fuzzy thinking, he gives his readers a firm basis for making their arguments. If you want to be able to make a good case against these organizations, this will help you to come to your own conclusions and it's a good introduction. Only drawback: it's broad focus might be frustrating for some. If that is true for you, take a good look at Stiglitz's book "Globalization and Its Discontents." This is also a well-written book.
Rating:
Summary: clarity of thought
Review: Even though Singer doesn't provide a completely balance view of globalization, this will be a very useful book. What I found most helpful was his clearly laid out objectives and values. Instead of fuzzy thinking, he gives his readers a firm basis for making their arguments. If you want to be able to make a good case against these organizations, this will help you to come to your own conclusions and it's a good introduction. Only drawback: it's broad focus might be frustrating for some. If that is true for you, take a good look at Stiglitz's book "Globalization and Its Discontents." This is also a well-written book.
Rating: 
Summary: One World Ethics, or U.S. Might Makes Right?
Review: Given the current crisis of the U.S. Leviathan run amok, this book should be required reading for every U.S. citizen. "One World" is a concise and powerful statement of ethical problems and principles involved in globalization, based on a series of lectures Singer delivered at Yale, where he teaches. He opens with a damning critique of the influential John Rawls, pointing out that Rawls' principles are not meant to apply to the world, but only within nation-states. Singer's rejection of this truncated moral myopia is the starting point for his analysis. There are four topical chapters: "One Atmosphere," dealing with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, "One Economy," dealing with the World Trade Organization, "One Law," dealing with international law and including the issue of humanitarian military intervention, and "One Community," dealing with world poverty and economic assistance. Singer is a utilitarian and a consequentialist. His ethical philosophy is simple and clear, and is easily understood by just about anybody. One of the central points of this book is that the U.S. is a rogue nation. Right-wingers like to accuse critics of U.S. policy of moral relativism, but Singer makes it crystal clear that it is actually the U.S. unilateralists who fail to apply the same moral criteria to the U.S. that they apply to everyone else. Their position reduces to "might makes right." Of course they would have to resort to a completely different sort of argument if the U.S. was not powerful enough to do whatever it wants and get away with it (for now). Singer, ever practical, proposes a transitional step toward a federal world government. This would involve turning the U.N. General Assembly into a World Assembly of democratically elected delegations for every country, proportional to their population. The catch, during the transition, would be that if a country did not allow the U.N. to conduct free and open elections to the Assembly, then that country would only be allowed 1 representative. Most people today consider world government to be either a bad idea, or utopian, if not both. It seems clear to me that many things in the world today would have seemed utopian not so long ago, and that world government will seem like common sense in the future, if we manage to pass through the Scylla and Charybdis of nuclear war and environmental crisis.
Rating:
Summary: One World Ethics, or U.S. Might Makes Right?
Review: Given the current crisis of the U.S. Leviathan run amok, this book should be required reading for every U.S. citizen. "One World" is a concise and powerful statement of ethical problems and principles involved in globalization, based on a series of lectures Singer delivered at Yale, where he teaches. He opens with a damning critique of the influential John Rawls, pointing out that Rawls' principles are not meant to apply to the world, but only within nation-states. Singer's rejection of this truncated moral myopia is the starting point for his analysis. There are four topical chapters: "One Atmosphere," dealing with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, "One Economy," dealing with the World Trade Organization, "One Law," dealing with international law and including the issue of humanitarian military intervention, and "One Community," dealing with world poverty and economic assistance. Singer is a utilitarian and a consequentialist. His ethical philosophy is simple and clear, and is easily understood by just about anybody. One of the central points of this book is that the U.S. is a rogue nation. Right-wingers like to accuse critics of U.S. policy of moral relativism, but Singer makes it crystal clear that it is actually the U.S. unilateralists who fail to apply the same moral criteria to the U.S. that they apply to everyone else. Their position reduces to "might makes right." Of course they would have to resort to a completely different sort of argument if the U.S. was not powerful enough to do whatever it wants and get away with it (for now). Singer, ever practical, proposes a transitional step toward a federal world government. This would involve turning the U.N. General Assembly into a World Assembly of democratically elected delegations for every country, proportional to their population. The catch, during the transition, would be that if a country did not allow the U.N. to conduct free and open elections to the Assembly, then that country would only be allowed 1 representative. Most people today consider world government to be either a bad idea, or utopian, if not both. It seems clear to me that many things in the world today would have seemed utopian not so long ago, and that world government will seem like common sense in the future, if we manage to pass through the Scylla and Charybdis of nuclear war and environmental crisis.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking and Surprisingly Moderate
Review: Peter Singer is arguably the most influential -- almost certainly the most controversial -- philosopher alive today. From the way he is treated in the press, one might expect this book to be nothing but a foaming-at-the-mouth radical manifesto, but instead I found a cogent, carefully argued inquiry into moral issues raised by globalization. Singer begins, as any good philosopher does, from premises that he thinks he can get most people to agree on: that no moral principle in itself justifies giving more of a limited resource to one person than to another; that we ought to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves; that we have an obligation to assist those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the direst poverty. From these premises, he carefully leads the reader to thoughtful conclusions, considering and responding to potential objections and modifying his own initial conclusions to provide a practical prescription for how one ought to act (the school of philosophy to which Singer belongs is known as "practical ethics"). In this brief book, Singer tackles 4 issues raised by globalization: how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; whether the WTO and free trade make the world a better place or simply enrich the rich at the expense of the poor while undermining all other human values; when military intervention is justified to prevent or stop genocide or other crimes against humanity; and the scope of the Western world's obligations to the poor and less developed portions of the world. Singer has clearly done his homework, providing a short but extremely useful overview of each problem, often illustrated with telling facts (for example, annual US domestic spending on alcohol is $34 billion, compared to $14 billion spent annually by the US on foreign development aid). Singer's conclusions are surprisingly moderate -- for example, while condemning the US for refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, he recognizes that the Treaty itself would be more effective if *all* nations (not just the developed ones) had quotas (since the quotas of less developed nations would be greater than their output, leading to a stronger market for emissions trading). While concluding that the WTO is undemocratic and places free trade above all other values, he acknowledges that the charge that the poor are worse off under globalization is at least not proven. He takes a stand against moral relativism and concludes that insisting on universal respect for human rights is not a kind of cultural imperialism. At the same time, he recognizes that a legal justification for intervention (atrocities are being committed) is not the same as a moral justification (will intervention produce the best result, all things considered?). Perhaps most interesting, an issue that weaves its way through the entire book is the changing nature of state sovereignty and what it means for a government to be legitimate. I kept wishing that Singer would devote more space to this issue -- perhaps someday he will write a separate book on it (although it may be too theoretical for his practical nature). "One World" is an exceptionally well-written and clearly argued book. You don't have to be a philosopher yourself to follow Singer; he uses the kind of moral reasoning we all have experience with and he makes his points in plain English. I can't say that I agree with all of his arguments, but he has given me a lot to think about, and I know that I will refer to this book again.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking and Surprisingly Moderate
Review: Peter Singer is arguably the most influential -- almost certainly the most controversial -- philosopher alive today. From the way he is treated in the press, one might expect this book to be nothing but a foaming-at-the-mouth radical manifesto, but instead I found a cogent, carefully argued inquiry into moral issues raised by globalization. Singer begins, as any good philosopher does, from premises that he thinks he can get most people to agree on: that no moral principle in itself justifies giving more of a limited resource to one person than to another; that we ought to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves; that we have an obligation to assist those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the direst poverty. From these premises, he carefully leads the reader to thoughtful conclusions, considering and responding to potential objections and modifying his own initial conclusions to provide a practical prescription for how one ought to act (the school of philosophy to which Singer belongs is known as "practical ethics"). In this brief book, Singer tackles 4 issues raised by globalization: how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; whether the WTO and free trade make the world a better place or simply enrich the rich at the expense of the poor while undermining all other human values; when military intervention is justified to prevent or stop genocide or other crimes against humanity; and the scope of the Western world's obligations to the poor and less developed portions of the world. Singer has clearly done his homework, providing a short but extremely useful overview of each problem, often illustrated with telling facts (for example, annual US domestic spending on alcohol is $34 billion, compared to $14 billion spent annually by the US on foreign development aid). Singer's conclusions are surprisingly moderate -- for example, while condemning the US for refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, he recognizes that the Treaty itself would be more effective if *all* nations (not just the developed ones) had quotas (since the quotas of less developed nations would be greater than their output, leading to a stronger market for emissions trading). While concluding that the WTO is undemocratic and places free trade above all other values, he acknowledges that the charge that the poor are worse off under globalization is at least not proven. He takes a stand against moral relativism and concludes that insisting on universal respect for human rights is not a kind of cultural imperialism. At the same time, he recognizes that a legal justification for intervention (atrocities are being committed) is not the same as a moral justification (will intervention produce the best result, all things considered?). Perhaps most interesting, an issue that weaves its way through the entire book is the changing nature of state sovereignty and what it means for a government to be legitimate. I kept wishing that Singer would devote more space to this issue -- perhaps someday he will write a separate book on it (although it may be too theoretical for his practical nature). "One World" is an exceptionally well-written and clearly argued book. You don't have to be a philosopher yourself to follow Singer; he uses the kind of moral reasoning we all have experience with and he makes his points in plain English. I can't say that I agree with all of his arguments, but he has given me a lot to think about, and I know that I will refer to this book again.
Rating:
Summary: Careful argument from an ethical base.
Review: Set in the context of globalization both of trade and of the capacity to mount attacks on cultures/communities that you consider to be hostile, Singer examines a selection of key policy decisions and institutions from an ethical viewpoint. These include:
• The ethics of a political position that gives absolute priority to the perceived short-term interests of the citizens of one's own country (particularly issues of poverty and environmental protection) - mainly in the Chapters "One Atmosphere" and "One Community", and ending (in "A Better World?") with a brief discussion of issues and alternatives for a better solution to the governance of a single world;
• An ethical critique of the World Trade Organization's defence against four key charges - in the Chapter "One Economy";
• A similar critique of the arguments advanced by global corporations for trading with dictatorial regimes - also in the Chapter "One Economy"; and
• An examination of the basis of international law, in particular the ethical basis for military intervention in another country - in the Chapter "One Law". A notable feature of the book is the wealth of factual detail that Singer brings to underpin his case. Further, he avoids the trap of mere utopianism by the rigour and practicality of his arguments, while insisting on the importance of the ethical dimension in resolving the issues. The care with which he lays out his arguments will provide food for thought for both sides of the divide about globalization, while his use of ethics as a touchstone highlights the sad fact that few current global policies, including the Iraq intervention, are ethically defensible.
Rating:
Summary: Read this!
Review: Short and sweet:
Read this if: 1) you're trying to clarify your arguments against (or even for) globalization -- Singer lays out all the issues you'll have to grapple with eventually. 2) you're looking for a straightforward overview of the key organizations that are controlling our world today and you're concerned about undemocratic processes. Skip it if: 1) you're so sure of what you think that you're convinced there are no new angles to consider. 2) you are already pretty familiar with the IMF and company and need something more in-depth.
Rating:
Summary: Read this!
Review: Short and sweet:
Read this if: 1) you're trying to clarify your arguments against (or even for) globalization -- Singer lays out all the issues you'll have to grapple with eventually. 2) you're looking for a straightforward overview of the key organizations that are controlling our world today and you're concerned about undemocratic processes. Skip it if: 1) you're so sure of what you think that you're convinced there are no new angles to consider. 2) you are already pretty familiar with the IMF and company and need something more in-depth.
|
