David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Global Politics 4 (3) (2011)
How should we determine which nations have a responsibility to remedy suffering elsewhere? The problem is pressing because, following David Miller, ‘[it] is morally intolerable if (remediable) suffering and deprivation are allowed to continue . . . where they exist we are morally bound to hold somebody (some person or collective agent) responsible for relieving them’. Miller offers a connection theory of remedial responsibilities in response to this problem, a theory he has been developing over the last decade. This theory is meant to serve as a guide on how we can best determine which nations are remedially responsible for alleviating suffering and deprivation elsewhere. Miller’s theory entails our following a procedure in order to determine remedial responsibility for nations. The problem is that there is an important flaw in this procedure, a flaw that previous critiques have overlooked. This essay will explain this flaw and how Miller’s theory might be reformulated into a two-tiered procedure that would take better account of this problem. Keywords: Global justice; nationalism; Miller; identity; distributive justice; severe poverty (Published: 16 September 2011) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 4 , No. 3, 2011, pp. 195-202. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v4i3.7140
|Keywords||Global justice Severe poverty Human rights Miller|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thom Brooks (2002). Cosmopolitanism and Distributing Responsibilities. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (3):92-97.
Thom Brooks (2007). Punishing States That Cause Global Poverty. William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2):519-32.
Pablo Gilabert (2005). The Duty to Eradicate Global Poverty: Positive or Negative? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (5):537 - 550.
Christian Barry & Pablo Gilabert (2008). Does Global Egalitarianism Provide an Impractical and Unattractive Ideal of Justice? International Affairs 84 (5):1025-1039.
Pablo Gilabert (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford University Press, UK.
Pablo Gilabert (2007). Contractualism and Poverty Relief. Social Theory and Practice 33 (2):277-310.
Pablo Gilabert (2008). Global Justice and Poverty Relief in Nonideal Circumstances. Social Theory and Practice 34 (3):411-438.
Pablo Gilabert (2009). The Feasibility of Basic Socioeconomic Human Rights: A Conceptual Exploration. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):659-681.
Kieran Oberman (2013). Beyond Sectarianism? On David Miller's Theory of Human Rights. Res Publica 19 (3):275-283.
Christian Barry & Gerhard Øverland (2012). The Feasible Alternatives Thesis: Kicking Away the Livelihoods of the Global Poor. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (1):97-119.
Thomas Pogge (2007). Severe Poverty as a Human Rights Violation. In , Freedom From Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor? Co-Published with Unesco. Oup Oxford.
Thomas Pogge (2005). Real World Justice. Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):29 - 53.
Magnus Reitberger (2008). Poverty, Negative Duties and the Global Institutional Order. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):379-402.
Mathias Risse (2012). On Global Justice. Princeton University Press.
Added to index2011-09-20
Total downloads18 ( #100,524 of 1,140,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,127 of 1,140,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?