Erroll Southers will discuss “Homegrown Violent Extremism – Toward a New Understanding” as a panelist at the International Day of Peace Symposium, hosted by Chapman University. The symposium is a forum for researchers, activists, students, and the public to share ideas and strategies for addressing challenges facing our nation and our planet. on the Chapman event website.
These modes of responsibility can in turn be further specified with respect to particular kinds of actions. The best known work of the New Natural Lawyers has focused on the specification of two of the modes mentioned above, both of which forbid intentional damage or destruction of a basic good, whether because of hostility, or because of enthusiasm for some good. In a 1970 essay, “Toward a Consistent Natural Law Ethics of Killing,” Grisez started to work out the consequences of these principles, arguing that not only homicide, suicide, direct abortion, and euthanasia are always and everywhere wrong, but also that capital punishment and intentional killing in war are also morally forbidden. Grisez and his collaborators also argued in support of the Catholic teaching on the impermissibility of contraception.
In this essay I argue that Iris Marion Young provides a substantially new model of responsibility that provides a way out of the standard debate regarding whether and the extent to which individuals have responsibilities for justice. This debate, best represented in an exchange of essays between G.A. Cohen and Thomas Pogge, hinges on the causal efficacy of the bearers of responsibility for justice. By distinguishing herself from both Cohen’s individualism and Pogge’s institutionalism, Young provides an enhanced way to conceptualize the responsibilities that individuals have towards justice in a nonideal world in which they have limited causal impact.