Barry and Øverland on doing, allowing, and enabling harm
Barry and Øverland on doing, allowing, and enabling harm
In Responding to Global Poverty: Harm, Responsibility, and Agency, Christian Barry and Gerhard Øverland address the two types of argument that have dominated discussion of the responsibilities of the affluent to respond to global poverty. The second type of argument appeals to ‘contribution-based responsibilities’: the affluent have a duty to do something about the plight of the global poor because they have contributed to that plight. Barry and Øverland rightly recognize that to assess contribution-based responsibility for global poverty, we need to understand what it is for an agent to contribute to harm rather than merely failing to prevent it. Barry and Øverland argue that we should replace the traditional bipartite distinction doing and allowing with a bipartite distinction between doing, allowing and enabling. I argue that their discussion represents a significant contribution to this debate. However, more detail on their key ideas of ‘relevant action’ and ‘complete causal process’ is needed. Moreover, in cases involving the removal of barriers, the non-need based claims of those involved matter.
Woollard, Fiona
c3caccc2-68c9-47c8-b2d3-9735d09f1679
6 March 2019
Woollard, Fiona
c3caccc2-68c9-47c8-b2d3-9735d09f1679
Abstract
In Responding to Global Poverty: Harm, Responsibility, and Agency, Christian Barry and Gerhard Øverland address the two types of argument that have dominated discussion of the responsibilities of the affluent to respond to global poverty. The second type of argument appeals to ‘contribution-based responsibilities’: the affluent have a duty to do something about the plight of the global poor because they have contributed to that plight. Barry and Øverland rightly recognize that to assess contribution-based responsibility for global poverty, we need to understand what it is for an agent to contribute to harm rather than merely failing to prevent it. Barry and Øverland argue that we should replace the traditional bipartite distinction doing and allowing with a bipartite distinction between doing, allowing and enabling. I argue that their discussion represents a significant contribution to this debate. However, more detail on their key ideas of ‘relevant action’ and ‘complete causal process’ is needed. Moreover, in cases involving the removal of barriers, the non-need based claims of those involved matter.
Text
Final version Woollard Barry and Overland on Doing
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 5 January 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 6 March 2019
Published date: 6 March 2019
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 414440
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/414440
ISSN: 1654-4951
PURE UUID: e82e7a42-526c-4839-b7a6-ba6e45adfd53
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 29 Sep 2017 16:31
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 16:14
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
Loading...
View more statistics