Lexical priority, global poverty and domestic inequality

FRANCISCO GARCÍA GIBSON

CABA

Simposio; Seminario Internacional Derechos Humanos y Justicia; 2015

Universidad Torcuato di Tella

Current views on global justice often hold that states are under at least two duties of justice: a duty to reduce extreme poverty abroad and a duty to reduce socioeconomic inequalities at home. Potential conflicts between these two duties are often solved by establishing a lexical priority ranking between them. A lexically prior duty must be fully complied with before complying with the lexically posterior duty. Using the Rawlsian device of an original position, I contend that the pro tanto correct way to solve any duty conflict is by applying proportionality, i.e. by simultaneously complying with each duty to a degree that matches its relative weight. Weightier duties should be complied with to a high degree, but less weighty duties deserve compliance too, although to a lesser degree. I then analyze whether in the particular conflict between global and domestic duties of justice there are any specific reasons to prefer, all things considered, lexicality over proportionality. I reject three possible reasons: the presence of rights; the presence of highly important interests; and the strict impossibility of complying with one duty without fully complying with the other duty before.