Violetta Igneski

In Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements, Monique Deveaux criticizes and reframes the traditional, moral (and often individualistic) response to poverty in favor of a political and collective one that centers the role of the poor and poor-led groups in the anti-poverty agenda. I have two aims in this review, a supportive one and a more critical one. On the supportive side, I examine the advances Deveaux makes by 1) expanding the category of agents of justice; 2) putting the poor at the center of an effective response to poverty; and 3) changing the emphasis from individual duties to a collective response. On the critical side, I revisit Deveaux’s critique of the traditional approach and argue that she unnecessarily shifts the moral burden away from the affluent whose complicity and capacity remain important grounds of obligation. In conclusion, I consider some remaining challenges that are (helpfully) exposed by Deveaux’s account.

Poverty is a global problem that is not only about material deprivation, but also a lack of agency and power. A Kantian response, with its focus on supporting the conditions of agency and empowerment, seems well suited to providing individuals with normative guidance on what their obligations are. The problem is that the guidance one finds within Kantian ethics is focused on the individual duty to aid or the duty to rescue, both of which have limited application in the context of a complex, wide-ranging and structural problem like poverty. Individuals, on their own, are unable to end poverty and they cannot adopt this as an end of theirs. But if they get together with enough others, things look a lot more promising. Even though a fully Kantian response to poverty requires exploring his legal philosophy and the role of the state, I focus here on the moral obligations of individuals, particularly the idea that by joining together we have increased capacity to respond and make a difference. If we start with certain assumptions about capacity and agency; namely that “ought implies can” and “only agents are duty-bearers”, it is not clear that collectives that are not (yet) agents—such as “humanity” or “the affluent” or “the poor”—are possible duty-bearers. The aim of this paper is to support a more expansive account of Kantian moral obligations in which unstructured collectives have moral duties and their individual members have duties both to help form effective collective agents, and also to fulfill their shares of the collective duty to end poverty.

How much are we morally required to do to aid others? After articulating some of the main contributions to this debate, I defend the position that we are sometimes morally permitted to spend our time and resources satisfying our own interests and needs rather than using them to aid others who are in desperate need. I argue that the duty to aid the needy should not always take priority over every other end we have. Whatever else we value, we most highly value the ability and opportunity to live our lives on our own terms; this grounds both our obligation to aid others and places limits on how far these obligations ought to extend. Persons ought to respect others and fulfill their moral obligations but they must also be given the moral space to set ends and pursue those ends just because they are theirs

The traditional conception of human rights, or the orthodox conception (OC), has, over the last few years, been vigorously challenged by the political conception (PC) of human rights. I have two main aims in this paper: the first is to articulate and evaluate the main points of disagreement between the OC and the PC in order to provide a clearer picture of what is at stake in the debate. The second is to argue that the OC has the resources to respond to the PC's most challenging criticism; namely that it is not sufficiently political

In this article, I support the liberal claim that the state's fundamental responsibility is to ensure that persons are able to interact as equals, that is, on the basis of equal freedom. That persons must be treated as responsible agents leads to an obligation on the part of the state to ensure that its citizens have the necessary conditions (and resources) for responsible agency. I further suggest that this conception of equality and the requirement for responsible agency is the right measure to use for setting limits on the state's obligation to redistribute its resources. I defend this claim by making a parallel argument in moral philosophy that distinguishes the duty to aid from the duty of beneficence and establishes a priority relationship between them.

It is a commonly held view that we ought to help others when they are in peril or in need, at least when we can do so at little cost to ourselves. This means that we have a duty to aid the child drowning in the pool of water in front of us and that we also have a duty to aid hungry and needy people in distant places. I agree with this view, but I show that it does not follow that the situation of the drowning child and the situation of the needy person bind us in the same way. ;Rescue and the Duty to Aid argues that there are two distinct types of duties to aid---a perfect duty to rescue and an imperfect duty to help the needy. Both are moral requirements, but they require different things. The duty to rescue demands a particular act of an agent. The duty to help the needy demands that the agent adopt a certain end---helping needy persons---and that she act to fulfill this end. In the former situation the agent is bound to do something specific, in the latter situation the agent has the latitude to choose how to best fulfill her end. My aim is not to show that one duty is necessarily stronger or more pressing than the other, but that they demand different things. ;Once I fill out the structure of our duties, we see that the duties have different fulfillment conditions. Perfect duties can be completely discharged by doing the required act. Imperfect duties are never completely discharged but we can do our share by contributing to the end. I show that there are limitations on the duty to aid but that these limitations apply differently to perfect and imperfect duties. With a greater understanding of how the limitations work, we are in a better position to understand what and how much these duties demand of us