The Ethics of Choosing Causes

Which causes should we prioritize for mobilization? Whether one adopts liberal theories of global justice, social connectedness models, or structural approaches to injustice, we are undeniably faced with a multitude of duties to act against wrongdoing. This paper examines the criteria for prioritizing among the various demands of justice. Setting such priorities is valuable for two reasons: first, it mitigates the sense of powerlessness and despair that can arise from moral overload; second, it helps identify the emancipatory potential of specific causes and the individual’s role within them. Theoretical effort has been dedicated to establishing the moral relationship between individuals and wrongs they do not commit directly; political responsibility, contributing to and benefiting from injustice, social connectedness and structural responsibility are important conceptualizations of these relationships. However, once an individual acknowledges these associations, it becomes clear that they apply to a vast number of cases simultaneously. We find ourselves connected to a myriad of causes, making it impossible to address them all. How, then, should we prioritize? This paper proposes and evaluates four guidelines: Proximity: This refers to the density of legal, political, and social relationships, not just mere geography. While proximity suggests an initial focus on one’s city, profession, or state, it does not rule out distant struggles; rather, it emphasizes the need to uncover the specific mechanisms that connect an individual to faraway injustices. Responsibility: While individuals are connected to many wrongs, the degree of responsibility varies. For instance, the general political responsibility held as a citizen may carry less immediate weight than a specific responsibility to intervene in severe social exclusion within one’s immediate community. Proximity and responsibility sometimes overlap, as the depth of a relationship has a bearing on the level of responsibility. Reliability: In an era of misinformation and growing political polarization, the reliability of our information is a moral concern. We must ask: Do we have trustworthy information about the wrong, do we understand the proposed remedies? This principle functions as a form of “moral due diligence” regarding the causes we champion. Effectiveness: This principle involves two considerations: the individual’s leverage and the cause’s overall potential for advancing its objective. Rather than setting an impossible epistemological bar, effectiveness serves as a delimitation; that is, to lower the priority of engagements with ostensibly low chances of fostering the desirable results. Together, these guidelines provide a framework to navigate the field of multiple, competing and overlapping moral obligations, allowing for sustainable commitment to social and political change.