Världen krymper och nationsgränser luckras upp. Globalisering har blivit ett inneord i den politiska retoriken. För somliga är det ett plusord som betyder utveckling, frihet och ökade möjligheter till kontakter. För andra är det ett minusord som står för ojämlikhet, plundring och fattigdom. Globaliseringen står på företagens och de internationella organisationernas dagordning, samtidigt som demonstrationer mot globala orättvisor pågår på gator och torg. Globaliseringens innebörd och följder studeras inom såväl samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen som humaniora. Inom etiken har frågan om vad rättvisa betyder diskuterats flitigt under senare år. Men diskussionen har ofta begränsats till rättvisa inom stater. I denna bok utvecklas en teori om rättvisa som tar hänsyn till de senaste decenniernas förändringar. Vad innebär global rättvisa i en tid som präglas av globalisering?

In 2020, the world faced a new pandemic. The corona infection hit an unprepared world, and there were no medicines and no vaccines against it. Research to develop vaccines started immediately and in a remarkably short time several vaccines became available. However, despite initiatives for global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, vaccines have so far become accessible only to a minor part of the world population. In this article, I discuss the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines from an ethical point of view. I reflect on what ethical principles should guide the global distribution of vaccines and what global justice and international solidarity imply for vaccine distribution and I analyse the reasons for states to prioritize their own citizens. My focus is on ethical reasons for and against ‘vaccine nationalism’ and ‘vaccine cosmopolitanism.’ My point of departure is the appeal for international solidarity from several world leaders, arguing that ‘Where you live should not determine whether you live’. I discuss the COVAX initiative to enable a global vaccination and the proposal from India and South Africa to the World Trade Organization to temporarily waive patent rights for vaccines. In the final section, I argue for global vaccine sufficientarianism, which is a modified version of vaccine cosmopolitanism.

Abstract For liberalism, values such as respect, reciprocity, and tolerance should frame cultural encounters in multicultural societies. However, it is easy to disregard that power differences and political domination also influence the cultural sphere and the relations between cultural groups. In this essay, I focus on some challenges for cultural pluralism. In relation to Indian political theorist Rajeev Bhargava, I discuss the meaning of cultural domination and epistemic injustice and their historical and moral implications. Bhargava argued that as a consequence of colonialism, “indigenous cultures” were inferiorized, marginalized, and anonymized. Although cultures are often changing due to external influences, I argue that epistemic injustice implies that a culture is forced to subjection, disrespected, and considered as inferior and that it threatens the dominated people’s epistemic framework, collective identity, and existential security. Finally, I refer to John Rawls’s theory of political liberalism as a constructive approach to avoid parochialism and Western cultural domination.

Coping with modern technology (genetics, biotechnology etc.) has become a major issue of people living in the 21st century. This technology creates new chances and possibilities but also new dangers and ethical concerns. This book investigates ethical dilemmas connected to these new technologies in a field of prenatal and genetic research that seems particularly challenging: prenatal diagnostics. In the last decades enormous progress has been made in diagnosing genetically based diseases and other serious prenatal abnormalities. Despite intensive world-wide research, several problems have emerged and still wait to be answered. The most prominent aim of the book is to address major ethical dilemmas in the context of genetic and prenatal diagnosis, and by that means help to create greater awareness of and sensitivity to these dilemmas among various segments of the societies.

Is it possible to communicate ethics across cultural borders? Not according to representatives of “the incommensurability thesis”, who claim that values and norms are culturally bounded. This article argues against this thesis. A first problem is that cultures and traditions are seen as comprehensive, delimited, and exclusive. Normally, however, a culture develops from and is in dialogue with other cultures. Further, the inner diversity of cultures and traditions opens the possibility of communication and shared understandings across cultural borders. Finally, the teaching and discussion of cross-cultural ethics provide practical evidence of the possibility of dialogue and mutual understanding.

Wars and injustices can have wide-ranging reverberations. Colonialism ended - with a few exceptions - over fifty years ago, but there are still many traces left. In this essay I focus on two cases of atrocities under colonialism that have left scars in the present and my question is: how can a nation rectify for the long-term effects of an aggression? What is the appropriate ethical response? The two examples are the German genocide of the Herero tribe in 1904-1905 and the British war against the Mau Mau movement in Kenya in the 1950s. The examples are chosen because they both illustrate enduring claims for rectification after aggressions. After the presentation of these cases and of how Germany and Great Britain have responded, I discuss the meaning of rectificatory justice and criteria for reasonable claims for rectification.

Globalisation involves both promising potentials and risks. It has the potential – through the spread of human rights, the migration of people and ideas, and the integration of diverse economies – to improve human wellbeing and enhance the protection of human rights worldwide. But globalisation also incurs risks: global environmental risks (such as global warming), the creation of new centres of power with limited legitimacy, a ‘race to the bottom’ regarding workers’ safety and rights, risky journeys of thousands of migrants and not least growing global inequalities. Globalisation, therefore, is a key factor for today’s discussions of justice. As globalisation connects people, it also raises associated responsibilities between them. Until recently, the interest in justice among political philosophers and social ethicists was mainly focused on the nation state. However, this is no longer feasible. Since economic globalisation affects how wealth and power are distributed globally it has become indispensable to discuss social ethics in a global context and to develop principles of global justice. Global justice, therefore, entails an assessment of the benefits and burdens of the structural relations and institutional arrangements that constitute and govern globalisation. The academic discussion of global justice is vibrant and expanding. In my introduction I provide an overview of the discussions on global poverty, justice, cosmopolitanism and statism, migration, the capability approach and different dimensions of global justice.