Economic Justice: Work on a Global Perspective

In "What should I get?" Arora asked the political philosophy and asked the important question "how much is my life worth?" It was "manipulated" from the beginning (Arora). The way to fix the game is fair for everyone. Society can start with a balanced competitive environment, eliminate the idea of ​​winners and losers, give equal opportunity to encourage and reward hard work and talent to everyone. Once the system has been modified, you can see that those who work hard and who use their gifts succeed and earn income.

In the ongoing worldwide justice argument, theorists who are often referred to as "cosenson" are internationalists on socio-economic justice: they are a range of justice principles of equalism - in a more specific and concrete society The principle of equality of equal distribution - the economic aspect - applies to the world population. "Opposite cosmopolitan" ("ruler" or "free nationalist") denied this claim. In an anti-internationalist view, equalism is only required in a social state or a national state. Because in these contexts it is possible to find morally important relationships to find equal responsibility.

Moving to a global context, justice mainly includes personal human rights and the ethics of common products worldwide. In this sense, judicial views on global health policy must be dual. But I think that interpreting the two justices as inherent duality and general opposition relationship is a serious mistake even if it is a common mistake. In addition to using human rights and common wealth, we can not make human rights "individualism" totally in contrast to "collectivism" of common interests. On the contrary, human rights are part of several worldwide common products. The purpose of this paper is to start explaining the meaning and meaning of this integrated dual focus point of view related to world health policy 2.