Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:20:41.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vulnerabilities and Responsibilities: An Ethical Defense of the Welfare State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert E. Goodin
Robert E. Goodin*
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We all acknowledge strong special responsibilities towards families, friends, clients, and compatriots. The moral basis of these responsibilities is traditionally analyzed in terms of self-assumed obligations. That analysis substantially restricts their scope, because we voluntarily commit ourselves to only a limited range of people. In this article I argue that it is the beneficiary's vulnerability rather than any voluntary commitment as such on the part of the benefactor that generates these special responsibilities. This analysis provides an argument for broader notions of responsibility, because there are many more agents vulnerable to us (individually or collectively) than to whom we have made commitments, in any sense. The welfare state is one particularly apt way of discharging at least some of these further responsibilities. Unlike more individualized responses, the welfare state can satisfy the criteria of a morally acceptable dependency relationship.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 775 - 787
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atiyah, P. S. The rise and fall of freedom of contract. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1956, 57, 1–30.10.1093/aristotelian/57.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australia, Royal Commission on Human Relationships. Final report. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1977.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. Interdependence and power: a conceptual analysis. International Organization, 1980, 34, 471–506.10.1017/S0020818300018828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B. Political argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. Positive and negative relevance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1983, 20, 185–194.Google Scholar
Blum, L. A. Friendship, altruism and morality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.Google Scholar
Braucher, R., & Farnsworth, E. A. Restatement (second) of the law of contracts. St. Paul, Minn.: American Law Institute, 1981.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. Journal of Philosophy, 1979, 76, 256–282.10.2307/2025881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, S., Haveman, R., & Plotnick, R. How income transfer programs affect work, savings and income distribution. Journal of Economic Literature, 1981, 19, 975–1028.Google Scholar
English, J. What do grown children owe their parents? In O'Neill, O. & Ruddick, W. (Eds.), Having children. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. Doing and deserving. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. Rights, justice and the bounds of liberty. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980.10.1515/9781400853977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, C. Medical experimentation. New York: American Elsevier, 1974.Google Scholar
Gilmore, G. The death of contract. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Glover, J. It makes no difference whether or not I do it. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 1975, 49, 171–190.10.1093/aristoteliansupp/49.1.171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. Causing death and saving lives. Harmondsworth, Mddx.: Penguin, 1977.Google Scholar
Godwin, W. Enquiry concerning political justice. London: G. G. J. & J. Robinson, 1793.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. How to determine who should get what. Ethics, 1975, 85, 310–321.10.1086/291970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. Discounting discounting. Journal of Public Policy, 1982a, 2, 53–72.10.1017/S0143814X00001793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. Political theory and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982b.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. Protecting the vulnerable: A re-analysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985a.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. Negating positive desert claims. Political Theory, in press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. Self-reliance versus the welfare state. Journal of Social Policy, 1985b, 14, 25–47.10.1017/S0047279400014240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorovitz, S. Bigotry, loyalty and malnutrition. In Brown, P. & Shue, H. (Eds.), Food Policy. New York: Free Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. Exchange theory on strategic bases. Social Science Information, 1982, 27, 251–272.10.1177/053901882021002004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. Moral thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.10.1093/0198246609.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. Are there any natural rights? Philosophical Review, 1955, 64, 175–191.10.2307/2182586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. Legal and moral obligation. In Melden, A. I. (Ed.), Essays in moral philosophy. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Heath, A. Rational choice and social exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Held, V. Marx, sex and the transformation of society. Philosophical Forum, 1974, 5, 168–183.Google Scholar
Kronman, A. T. A new champion for the will theory. Yale Law Journal, 1981, 91, 404–423.10.2307/796020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macneil, I. R. The new social contract. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Marks, F. R. Detours on the road to maturity. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1975, 39 (Summer), 78–92.10.2307/1191269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, M. Obligations to the starving. Nous, 1981, 15, 309–323.10.2307/2215435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, R. H. Foster care—in whose best interests? Harvard Educational Review, 1973, 43, 599–638.10.17763/haer.43.4.unm6691p3u1n450vCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montaigne, M. Of friendship. In Frame, D. M. (Trans.), The complete essays of Montaigne. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958 (originally published 1580).10.1515/9780804780773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. Anarchy, state and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.Google Scholar
Oldenquist, A. Loyalties. Journal of Philosophy, 1982, 79, 173–193.10.2307/2026219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Pateman, C. The shame of the marriage contract. Mimeo, University of Sydney, 1981.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. Justice as fairness. Philosophical Review, 1958, 67, 164–194.10.2307/2182612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.10.4159/9780674042605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, A., & Ware, A. Interests in political theory. British Journal of Political Science, 1983, 13, 379–400.10.1017/S0007123400003331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, W. A. Welfare state and welfare society. London: Allen & Unwin, 1976.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.Google Scholar
Routley, R., & Routley, V. Against the inevitability of human chauvinism. In Goodpaster, K. & Sayre, K. (Eds.), Ethics and problems of the twenty-first century. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Shue, H. Basic rights. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Singer, P. Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972, 1, 229–243.Google Scholar
Skolnick, A. The limits of childhood. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1975, 39 (Summer), 38–77.10.2307/1191268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. Public assistance as a social obligation. Harvard Law Review, 1949, 63, 266–288.10.2307/1336561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. The right to life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Steiner, G. Y. The futility of family policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1981.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. Responsibility for self. In Rorty, A. O. (Ed.), The identities of persons. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. Appeal of one half of the human race. London: Longman, 1825.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. J. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971, 1, 47–66.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. The social division of welfare. In Titmuss, R. M., Essays on “the welfare state.” London: Allen & Unwin, 1958.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. Welfare “rights,” law and discretion. Political Quarterly, 1971, 42, 113–132.10.1111/j.1467-923X.1971.tb00061.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lennep, E. Opening address. In The Welfare state in crisis. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1981.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. Employment hazards. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Walker, A. The social creation of poverty and dependence in old age. Journal of Social Policy, 1980, 9, 49–75.10.1017/S0047279400009545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. Dependency in old age. Social Policy and Administration, 1982, 16, 115–135.10.1111/j.1467-9515.1982.tb00164.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, M. Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A critique of utilitarianism. In Smart, J. J. C & Williams, B., Utilitarianism, for and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Williams, B. Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.10.1017/CBO9781139165860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. R. S. In one another's power. Ethics, 1978, 88, 299–315.Google Scholar
Winkler, E. R. Utilitarian idealism and personal relations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1982, 12, 265–286.10.1080/00455091.1982.10715797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, D. Optimal pricing of sequential inputs: last clear chance, mitigation of damages and related doctrines in the law. Journal of Legal Studies, 1981, 10, 65–91.10.1086/467671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollstonecraft, M. A vindication of the rights of women (2nd ed.). London: J. Johnson, 1792.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.