Associative Political Obligations and the Distributive Objection

Abstract

In this article we assess the distributive objection to the claim that we have associative political obligations. We deploy three kinds of strategy in our response: avoidance, mitigation and confrontation. Avoidance and mitigation are accommodating responses, in which we argue that associative political obligations often need not fall foul of the distributive objection in any very damaging way. But they may not always be enough, and thus confrontation may sometimes be necessary. This response involves rejecting the more extreme claims of proponents of the distributive objection, while accepting that occasionally serious tensions between the demands of our associative political obligations and those of global redistribution may remain, both of which have moral standing.