%0 Journal Article
%T Rethinking remedial responsibilities
%A Thom Brooks
%J Ethics & Global Politics
%D 2011
%I Co-Action Publishing
%R 10.3402/egp.v4i3.7140
%X 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.
%K Global justice
%K nationalism
%K Miller
%K identity
%K distributive justice
%K severe poverty
%U http://www.ethicsandglobalpolitics.net/index.php/egp/article/view/7140/11234