Pogge's Appeal to Morality

In his article, Pogge argues that the current system of intellectual property rights and patents after the TRIPS agreement is “morally deeply problematic” (2).  Pogge asserts in his article that everyone has a moral obligation to do what is in their power to work to eradicate the global burden of disease (GBD) that afflicts a majority of poorer countries. In order to correct the current morally corrupt structure, Pogge suggests creating a GBD patent that incentivizes big pharma to facilitate the access of life-saving drugs to the world’s poor. The GBD patent reorients the incentives of pharmaceutical companies by rewarding them only if their medicines favorably impact the GBD. Pharmaceutical companies would then be more likely to promote generic versions of their drug and sell them at lower-than-market prices in order to create this greater impact. Pogge explains that each country would contribute to the price of this reward, with the more affluent countries covering more of the cost. In short, his plan ultimately relies on the taxpayers of affluent nations to cover a majority of the costs for the GBD patent.

Pogge’s argument for morality is unconvincing as he neglects to sufficiently argue for the moral necessity that demands that the affluent should cover the costs of GBD patents in order to benefit the poor.  I do not believe that Pogge adequately explains why the affluent taxpayers should contribute to his plan. He explains that the wealthy will support his idea because it would bring them lower drug prices and access to medicines that typically afflict poorer regions as well as the “morally compelling” interest of avoiding mortality and morbidity in poorer countries (36).  To demonstrate his argument for morality, Pogge appeals to our sense of moral intuition in the example of giving a small amount of money to save the life of a total stranger. Yes, it would be very nice of us to help this total stranger.  However, what moral obligation do we have to the total stranger in need? Pogge neglects to decode if and why there is a moral obligation for the affluent to help the poor. In his conclusion, Pogge briefly solicits the idea that we must support his plan “as it is necessary for rendering minimally just the rules of the world economy considered as one scheme” (38). To Pogge, it is our moral obligation to help those in need in order to provide minimal justice (i.e. not make any situation worse) to those a part of the world economic system. I believe that this point more clearly defines Pogge’s argument for morality and would like him to expand upon this point to further support his argument.