Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):102-130 (2006)
AbstractThe essay theorizes the responsibilities moral agents may be said to have in relation to global structural social processes that have unjust consequences. How ought moral agents, whether individual or institutional, conceptualize their responsibilities in relation to global injustice? I propose a model of responsibility from social connection as an interpretation of obligations of justice arising from structural social processes. I use the example of justice in transnational processes of production, distribution and marketing of clothing to illustrate operations of structural social processes that extend widely across regions of the world. The social connection model of responsibility says that all agents who contribute by their actions to the structural processes that produce injustice have responsibilities to work to remedy these injustices. I distinguish this model from a more standard model of responsibility, which I call a liability model. I specify five features of the social connection model of responsibility that distinguish it from the liability model: it does not isolate perpetrators; it judges background conditions of action; it is more forward looking than backward looking; its responsibility is essentially shared; and it can be discharged only through collective action. The final section of the essay begins to articulate parameters of reasoning that agents can use for thinking about their own action in relation to structural injustice. a Footnotesa Thanks to David Alexander, Daniel Drezner, David Owen, and Ellen Frankel Paul for comments on an earlier version of this essay. Thanks to David Newstone for research assistance.
Similar books and articles
Shared Responsibility, Global Structural Injustice, and Restitution.Todd Calder - 2010 - Social Theory and Practice 36 (2):263-290.
The Global Consequence of Participatory Responsibility.Henning Hahn - 2009 - Journal of Global Ethics 5 (1):43 – 56.
Collective Responsibility and National Responsibility.Roland Pierik - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):465-483.
Group Moral Agency as Environmental Accountability.Joan Woolfrey - 2008 - Social Philosophy Today 24:69-88.
Reproductive Tourism and the Quest for Global Gender Justice.Anne Donchin - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (7):323-332.
Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take Into Account in Contemporary Societies? [REVIEW]Jose Maria Lopez-De-Pedro & Eva Rimbau-Gilabert - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (2):147-158.
Cosmopolitanism and Distributing Responsibilities.Thom Brooks - 2002 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (3):92-97.
Can Global Justice Provide a Path Toward Achieving Justice Across the Americas?Allison B. Wolf - 2005 - Journal of Global Ethics 1 (2):153 – 176.
Confronting Political Responsibility: The Problem of Acknowledgment.Jacob Schiff - 2008 - Hypatia 23 (3):pp. 99-117.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment. [REVIEW]Benjamin Powell & Matt Zwolinski - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (4):449-472.
Obligations of the “Gift”: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Precision Medicine.Sandra Soo-Jin Lee - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 21 (4):57-66.
Is There an Obligation to Reduce One’s Individual Carbon Footprint?Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2014 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (2):168-188.
Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives.Sébastien Mena & Guido Palazzo - 2012 - Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (3):527-556.
References found in this work
No references found.