Development+Ethics-+Old+Version+(Tekle's+part)


 * //This is the first version that Tekle wrote. I save it here so that we have it, as I had to make a shortened version that fit with the word limit.//**

For many years development has been seen perceived as a straight forward economic issue. History has shown that the mere monetary measurement can not solve the issues and problems of development. Contemporary worldwide status quo proves that no considerable distance has been covered with regard to ordinary problems such as water scarcity, famine, and bad sanitary conditions in the non-developed third world, at the same time with in the developed world massive consumption has been caused huge ecological destruction. Particularly with increasing multi-dimensional poverty and deprivation in the third world countries development philosophers and other ethicists formulate ethical principles relevant to social change in poor countries, analyze and assess the moral dimensions of development theories and seek to resolve the moral quandaries raised in development policies and practice: In what direction and by what means should a society 'develop'? Who is morally responsible for beneficial change? What are the obligations, if any, of rich societies (and their citizens) to poor societies?( Crocker,n.d.,p.1)
 * //The Central Tenets within Development Ethics//**

As Crocker (n.d., p.2, 1991, p.457,) stated development ethicists have emerged with critical questions and issues to be adressed in socio-economic change with in the umbrella of development. Development ethics (DE) is a work on ethical and value questions posed by development theory, planning, and practice (Gasper, 1992, p.19) and it is originated based on the ancient philosophical view of what is good life and happiness (Astroulaki, 2010,p.4). Thus, the very essential task of development ethics is to render development decision and human action to insure that the changes launched under the banner of development are not result in antidevelopment which destroys culture, individuals, and social well-being (Goulet, 1997, p.1169). For development ethicists the true indicator of development is the qualitative enrichment of human beings in all relevant aspects of human life, thus, it puts human development as ends and economic development as means as a tool of directing development towards qualitative improvement in human development(Goulet ,1997, p.1168). Development ethics pays greater attention to nature and ecological preservation. One of the strongest arguments in favor of giving priority to the protection of the environment is the ethical need for guaranteeing that future generations would continue to enjoy similar opportunities of leading worthwhile lives that are enjoyed by generations that precede them(Crocker, 1991, p.455). Perhaps the objective of development should also create an enabling environment for the current generation to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. To achieve these objectives it would be important to understand under which ethicl values and principles shall development process takes place. Despite of the fact that development is a relative good relative to value perspective Goulet argued that there are three common universally accepted values of development (1975, 1995, cited in Astroulaki, 2010,p.6): I. Life-sustenance- based on this value one of development’s most important goals is to prolong men’s lives and render those men less ‘stunted’ by disease, extreme exposure to nature’s elements, and defenselessness against enemies and as the human good life is accepted by the generall society life-sustaining indices are used to measure development. II. Esteem- All human beings in all societies feel the necessity for respect, dignity, honor and recognition. Thus, societies tends to aquire advanced technology, material and high rate of well-being. Materail approach to developemnt and self-esteem can direct socities to opposite, to development or recjecting developemnt. III. Freedom- freedom is one of the components of the “good life” for both developed and developing societies. There must be distiniction between freedom from wants and freedom for wants. Where the former indicates that human needs are adquetly met, while the latter reflects new wants are overlaped and multiplied over the existing wants with out achieving them. Though it is difficult to set structured procedures for developemnt process as Crocker (n.d.p.3) stated there are some parameters for ethically based developemnt: Generally development ethics attempts to percieve developemnt as a broad concept than seeking single yardistic measurement to achieve qualitative human developmnet. However, developemnt ethics as new concept for applying to international developemnt have faced some criticisms. Developemnt ethics is largely invented for developing countries in the south this distiniction of north-south can lead developemnt become too ambitious and diffuse where relative poverty and human deprevation is still existed in the north as well(Crocker, n.d., p.5). crocker further argued that the univesalism values for good human life and how the developemnt benefits, burdens, and responsibilities should be dsitributed within poor countries and between rich and poor countries.
 * What should count as (good) development?
 * Should we continue using the concept of development instead of, for example, 'progress,' 'transformation,' 'liberation,' or 'postdevelopment alternatives to development' ?
 * What should be a society's basic economic, political and cultural goals and strategies, and what principles should inform their selection?
 * What moral issues emerge in development policymaking and practice and how should they be resolved?
 * How should the burdens and benefits of development be conceived and distributed?
 * Who or what should be responsible for bringing about development? A nation's government, civil society or the market? What role—if any— should more affluent states, international institutions, and nongovernmental associations and individuals have in the self-development of poor countries?
 * What are the most serious local, national and international impediments to good development?
 * To what extent, if any, do moral scepticism, moral relativism, national sovereignty and political realism pose a challenge to this boundary-crossing ethical inquiry?
 * Who should decide these questions and by what methods
 * development practices and theories have ethical and value dimensions and can benefit from explicit ethical analysis and criticism
 * devtelopment should be percieved as a multidisciplinary field that has both theoretical and practical components that intertwine in various ways
 * development should committed to understanding and reducing human deprivation and misery in poor countries
 * development projects and aid givers should seek strategies in which both human well-being and a healthy environment jointly exist and are mutually reinforcing
 * as development' can be used both descriptively and normatively, a normative sense of 'development' is should be ethically justified
 * development ethics must be conducted at various levels of generality and specificity
 * flexibility of developemnt models

**Sources:** Astroulaki,N.(2010), The Development Ethics Paradigm: Ethical Goals and Strategies For an Authentic Development, Retrieved from [] Crocker (n.d.), International Development Ethics, retrieved from [] Crocker, D.(1991), Toward Development Ethics, World Development, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 457-483,199l. [] Gallopin, G.G., Gutman, P., and Maletta, H., (1989), Global Improvement, sutainable development, and the environment: a conceptual aprroach, pp. 375-397 Goulet, D., (1997), Developement Ethics a new decipline, pp. 1160-1171

In their article Gallopin, Gutman and Maletta (1989) make a distinction between two sources for environmental degradation associated with economic growth and poverty. Unsustainable development and unsustainable impoverishment are complementary sides of economic growth at world level causing stress on Earth’s natural resources and ecosystem, a condition characterized by the inequality and growing symmetry between rich and poor. In a development perspective the effects biophysical challenges have on societies and the effects societies have on the environment should have a central role when investigating the effects social and political decision making have on poverty, and in the search for measures to address the welfare of the poor (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, pp. 376-377). Many holds the point of view that there is enough resources on this planet for everyone to be fed, kept safe, allowed the opportunity to enjoy several benefits and goods and to stimulate further development. It is uneven distribution that caused and maintains the situation we see today. Poverty is a result of unequal distribution of goods and services, and of knowledge and systems that are developed by humans, not of lacking resources or inability to produce. “The total eradication of global poverty is technological and economically possible” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 376). Thus, “global poverty coexisting with global affluence is absolutely unjustifiable on purely ethical grounds” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 379). However, the complexity of the situation leads away from the purely moral stand, towards the development style at international level as a collective effort to change the global development pattern.

There are mainly two ways of local and global interactions, socioeconomic effect and ecological effect. The relationship “between society, population, technology and nature”, both historically and at any point in time “are of critical importance in determining the dynamic and consequences of poverty” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 380). Yet, myriads of local action worldwide seem to erode the basis for sustainability and development (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 388). In the relationship between the local and global level we can differ between biophysical effects and social effects. Among biophysical effects we find deforestation affecting the carbon dioxide balance and climate negatively; pollution; carbon dioxide release from burning of fossil fuels; toxic waste dumping into the ocean; habitat destruction and species extinction; soil erosion; overfishing; pets and pathogens; and nuclear activity. Among social effects we find product sensitivity and growing expectations and consumption levels; migrations; negative implications for indigenous populations and cultural diversity; socioeconomic policies e.g. agricultural subsidies; and “cumulative increases of local poverties generating global ethical, environmental, social, economic and political problems, sometimes triggering military conflicts”; as well as uneven capital accumulation and production; technological changes; changes in power structures and alliances; information flows (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 389).

Globalization and its characteristics highlight the complexity of the situation and present an interconnected map of the relationship between poverty, environment and development. Gallopin, Gutman and Maletta suggest that “there are no institutional mechanisms that can operate simultaneously at such a multiplicity of scales” and that “an integrated set of measures, agreements and policies ranging from the local and national to the global scales” is a necessary approach to solve the problem of poverty (1989, p. 390).