AUTONOMY AND DUTIES TO DISTANT STRANGERS; 419-431

(Full text in pdf format)

 

Jukka Varelius

 

University of Turku, Finland

 

Abstract. One way of arguing for the position that states may prioritize their own citizens over foreigners draws attention to the ways in which states limit their citizens’ autonomy. States routinely coerce their citizens by enforcing a large set of laws. This is incompatible with paying due respect for individual autonomy, this way of thinking proceeds, and therefore governments should compensate for the restrictions they impose on their citizens’ autonomy by showing special concern for their own citizens. This line of argu­ment for governments’ prioritizing their own citizens over foreigners has faced criticism in the recent philosophical literature. Richard J. Arneson (2005) argues that justified laws do not impose the kinds of limitations on citizen autonomy that would deserve compensation. Kok-Chor Tan (1993) maintains that the kind of coercion deserving of compensation is not limited to the national context, and that even national compensation cannot ignore the moral claims of foreigners. This paper examines these criticisms by Arneson and Tan.

 

Keywords: autonomy, citizen, coercion, foreigner, global justice duties, patriotic obligation, Arneson, Tan

 

 

References

 

Arneson, Richard J. (2005) “Do patriotic ties limit global justice duties?” The Journal of Ethics 9, 1-2, 127–150.
doi:10.1007/s10892-004-3323-x

Arneson, Richard J. (1999) “Equality of opportunity for welfare defended and recanted”. Journal of Political Philosophy 7, 4, 488–497.
doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00088

Blake, Michael (2002) “Distributive justice, state coercion, and autonomy”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 30, 3, 257–296.
doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2001.00257.x

Cohen, G. A. (1989) “On the currency of egalitarian justice”. Ethics 99, 906–944.
doi:10.1086/293126

Goodin, Robert E. (1988) ‘What is so special about our fellow countrymen?’ Ethics 98, 663–686.
doi:10.1086/292998

Green, Michael (2005) “Social justice, voluntarism, and liberal nationalism”. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2, 3, 265–283.
doi:10.1177/1740468105058155

Hellsten, Sirkku (2005) “Global justice and the demand for global responsibility”. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2, 3, 371–379.
doi:10.1177/1740468105058165

Horton, Keith (2004) “Famine and fanaticism: a response to Kekes”. Philosophy 79, 2, 319–327.
doi:10.1017/S0031819104000282

Jamieson, Dale (2005) “Duties to the distant: aid, assistance, and intervention in the developing world”. The Journal of Ethics 9, 1–2, 151–170.
doi:10.1007/s10892-004-3324-9

Kekes, John (2004) “Reply to Horton”. Philosophy 79, 2, 328–330.
doi:10.1017/S0031819104000294

Kekes, John (2002) “On the supposed obligation to relieve famine”. Philosophy 77, 4, 503–517.
doi:10.1017/S0031819102000438

Kelly, Erin I. (2005) “Ethical disagreement in theory and practice”. Journal of Social Philosophy 36, 3, 382–387.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00282.x

Miller, Richard W. (1998) “Cosmopolitan respect and patriotic concern”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 27, 3, 202–224.
doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1998.tb00068.x

Nagel, Thomas (2005) “The problem of global justice”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33, 2, 113–147.
doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x

Rawls, John (1993) Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Singer, Peter (1972) “Famine, affluence, and morality”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, 1, 229–243.

St. Clair, Asunción Lera (2006) “Global poverty: development ethics meets global justice”. Globaliza­tions 3, 2, 139–157.
doi:10.1080/14747730600702840

Sterba, James P. (2005) The triumph of practice over theory in ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tan, Kok-Chor (2003) “Patriotic obligations”. The Monist 86, 3, 434–453.

Vallentyne, Peter (2002) “Brute luck, option luck, and equality of initial opportunities”. Ethics 112, 3, 529–557.
doi:10.1086/339275