The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice

Within the global justice debate the demandingness objection is primarily aimed at utilitarian theorists who defend a version of the ‘optimizing principle of beneficence’ to deal with the problem of global poverty. The problem of demandingness, however, is hardly ever raised within the context of th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ronald Tinnevelt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina 2017-12-01
Series:Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ethic/article/view/54185
id doaj-8dc59847fd7a4d20ac014190f85860e8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8dc59847fd7a4d20ac014190f85860e82021-04-02T13:52:49ZengUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaEthic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy1677-29542017-12-0116349351810.5007/1677-2954.2017v16n2p49328453The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injusticeRonald Tinnevelt0Radboud University NijmegenWithin the global justice debate the demandingness objection is primarily aimed at utilitarian theorists who defend a version of the ‘optimizing principle of beneficence’ to deal with the problem of global poverty. The problem of demandingness, however, is hardly ever raised within the context of the dominant institutional theories of global justice that see severe poverty as a human rights violation. Nor are the fundamental underlying questions posed by most of these theorists. Which specific responsibilities do individual moral agents have regarding institutional and structural forms of injustice (1)? Which political spheres, organized public spaces, or political practices are necessary to create a setting in which these responsibilities can be discharged (2)? Does a ‘defensible and psychologically feasible conception of responsibility’ (Scheffler 2002, 62) exist that is restrictive – yet demanding – enough to deal with the complex challenges of our globalizing age (3). This paper addresses questions (1) and (3) on the basis of a critical analysis of Iris Marion Young’s social connection theory of responsibility.https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ethic/article/view/54185global justicedemandingnessindividual responsibilitiesiris marion young
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ronald Tinnevelt
spellingShingle Ronald Tinnevelt
The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy
global justice
demandingness
individual responsibilities
iris marion young
author_facet Ronald Tinnevelt
author_sort Ronald Tinnevelt
title The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
title_short The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
title_full The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
title_fullStr The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
title_full_unstemmed The implications of being implicated. Individual responsibility and structural injustice
title_sort implications of being implicated. individual responsibility and structural injustice
publisher Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
series Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy
issn 1677-2954
publishDate 2017-12-01
description Within the global justice debate the demandingness objection is primarily aimed at utilitarian theorists who defend a version of the ‘optimizing principle of beneficence’ to deal with the problem of global poverty. The problem of demandingness, however, is hardly ever raised within the context of the dominant institutional theories of global justice that see severe poverty as a human rights violation. Nor are the fundamental underlying questions posed by most of these theorists. Which specific responsibilities do individual moral agents have regarding institutional and structural forms of injustice (1)? Which political spheres, organized public spaces, or political practices are necessary to create a setting in which these responsibilities can be discharged (2)? Does a ‘defensible and psychologically feasible conception of responsibility’ (Scheffler 2002, 62) exist that is restrictive – yet demanding – enough to deal with the complex challenges of our globalizing age (3). This paper addresses questions (1) and (3) on the basis of a critical analysis of Iris Marion Young’s social connection theory of responsibility.
topic global justice
demandingness
individual responsibilities
iris marion young
url https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ethic/article/view/54185
work_keys_str_mv AT ronaldtinnevelt theimplicationsofbeingimplicatedindividualresponsibilityandstructuralinjustice
AT ronaldtinnevelt implicationsofbeingimplicatedindividualresponsibilityandstructuralinjustice
_version_ 1721563731030179840