One World: the ethics of globalization.

by Peter Singer (New Haven, CT and London, England: Yale University Press, 2002); 235 pp; $21.95 cloth.

Because of his strikingly original thinking on animal rights, genetic screening, and other issues, Peter Singer has become a controversial philosopher even among humanists. But in his newest book, most humanists should find little with which to argue.

His central point is that in today's changing world a global ethic is unavoidable. This is because a significant amount of what is done by countries, corporations, institutions, and even individuals can't help but have a global impact. Yet despite this situation we've had George W. Bush declare that "first things first are the people who live in America." This follows in the footsteps of his father who said, "the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation"--apparently even if it upsets global weather patterns and contributes to a rising sea level, thereby eventually killing or rendering homeless tens of millions of other people around the world.

The same shortsighted line of thinking has, unfortunately, existed in academia, as seen in one of the best expositions of late twentieth-century intellectual ideas about ethics and human rights: John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Singer expresses his astonishment that a book so highly regarded, with such a title, "could utterly fail to discuss the injustice of the extremes of wealth and poverty that exist between different societies." Rawls only addresses those differences within a given society--somehow never extrapolating the problem and his solution beyond the arbitrary boundaries of nations. So Singer takes on the task himself in pursuit of a consistent global philosophy.

He starts with the concept of one atmosphere. After summarizing the evidence for disastrous global climate changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions emanating primarily from human activity in the wealthy nations of the northern hemisphere, Singer draws the conclusion that "seemingly harmless and trivial human actions can affect people in distant countries." For example, "by driving your car, you could be releasing carbon dioxide that is part of a causal chain leading to lethal floods in Bangladesh." So he asks, "How can we adjust our ethics to take account of this new situation?"

His answer is that since the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb the gasses we create has become finite, then it becomes necessary to develop a just allocation of the expenses for counteracting environmental damage. This should be based on a "polluter pays" principle.

Singer then turns to the concept of one economy. He provides a reasoned analysis of the charges made against the World Trade Organization as well as the defenses given in response. From this he concludes that the WTO has wrongly placed economic considerations ahead of others, eroded national sovereignty, and operated in a manner not truly democratic. But, seeming to recognize that the global economy is here to stay, he proposes a number of reforms in global economic thinking and WTO policies.

Exploring the concept of one law, Singer begins by looking into the causes of human violence. He finds that, while much of violence would be eliminated by ridding the world of the poverty, ignorance, oppression, abuse, and exploitation that often spawn it, this wouldn't remove it all. This is because of the unpleasant fact that genocide, for example, usually confers on its perpetrators a notable genetic advantage. Even chimpanzees practice it to the benefit of their group. Therefore, if this crime is ever to be eliminated, a system of international criminal law and enforcement will have to be developed to provide the necessary disincentive that is lacking in nature. Along these lines, Singer proposes rules of engagement for humanitarian intervention in the genocidal affairs of sovereign nations.

Concluding with the concept of one community, Signer examines the "charity begins at home" ethic and finds it wanting. So, in perhaps his most controversial proposal in the whole book, he builds a careful case for why every citizen of a rich country has a global obligation to donate at least 1 percent of her or his income to meeting the needs of distant strangers who suffer from a lack of the most basic necessities. Singer is known for practicing this ethic, himself.

Overall, One World offers a most reasoned and compassionate application of humanist values to the central issues facing humanity in our time.