Marcela asked:

I have a work to do about "globalization" and I would like to know if globalization has an ethical
fundament and, if it is true, what or which is this fundament. I am thinking especially about the
consequences of globalization on the Third World.

============

Globalisation is an international rather than a national attitude or approach to many aspects of life.
You can have political and/or economic and/or social and/or cultural and/or legal globalisation and
internal to these are narrower classifications. For instance, social globalisation would include
employment and/or welfare rights and legal globalisation would be concerned with justice as civil and
human rights.

In a recent answer I spoke of globalisation as the exploitation of poor countries (I think the PC
description is "least developed" and we don't talk of "Third World" and more) by rich countries. This
was a simplification of the term or what it has come to signify at the moment. Obviously, there can be
no ethical foundation for exploitation. However, there are, in fact, international charters which are
attempts to achieve good international relations. The ethical foundation for a charter is international
peace and also human rights are involved in, for instance, the American Declaration of Rights and the
European Convention. Another positive aspect of globalisation, as it stands, is development
assistance — though this isn't going too well. The ethical foundation for this is the idea that poverty is
not a good thing. A reasonable foundation — but the question is "what is the right thing?" Should
development aim at industrialisation, for instance?

Western cultural values which are consumeristic and materialistic are found attractive and adopted by
the least developed countries before they are able to receive and benefit from global economic aid.
People are being corrupted by values which are not proper to them because they are not
economically viable. Consumerism is properly a product of rich nations. To become a rich nation may
mean industrialisation if there is no source of raw materials with a world-wide demand. It is not
enough to base a policy on the principle that poverty is bad, without considering whether what looks
like the inevitable end is good.

You could also think about international peace and whether this ethical foundation is realistic or
fanciful and idealistic. The "least developed" countries are often the least peaceful. So perhaps
globalisation through international peace charters might be beneficial. On the other hand, it is human
nature to form strong beliefs and alliances which can lead to territorial claims.

If you think of globalisation as an imminent global government with political control which could
ensure peace and could provide economic and educational homogeneity worldwide, there would be
benefit to the Third World. However, this may lead to a transformation in human values which it is
difficult to envisage. Current values of shared religion, kinship and loyalty with a people, responsibility
for and identity with a geographical area might fade away in favour of some global aspiration. Now, in
a multi-cultural society, there remain cultural loyalties but these will weaken as new generations come
to choose their own values from the diversity available. With a weakening of cultural ties may come
global "America", materialism, kitsch, and, perhaps worst of all, international non-smoking!

Rachel Browne