If others fail to fulfill their obligations of beneficence, are we obliged to pick up the slack? Liam Murphy's Fair Share view denies this, claiming that we are obligated to do our fair share (as it would be under full compliance), and no more. It would be "unfair", the thought goes, to impose any further costs on us beyond that. We should not have to suffer because of others' moral failings.
I'm not convinced that that line of thought actually makes any sense. For what about those who remain in desperate need of aid? Surely they should not have to suffer because of others' moral failings, either. And their suffering is much, much more serious than ours would be. It seems that others' moral failure leaves us with a choice: (i) pay slightly more than ideally should have been required of us, or (ii) allow others in need to suffer much, much more than they ideally should have to.
Now, maybe it's unfair that we are left with (i) and (ii) as the only available options. But on what planet is (ii) a fairer outcome than (i)? If an impartial benevolent spectator had to choose for us, isn't it obvious that they should pick option (i)? Insofar as considerations of "fairness" enter the picture at all, they surely support those in dire need who haven't received the aid they were rightly entitled to. If it's unfair for us to have to pay more because others aren't pulling their weight, it's grossly unfair for those in need to experience great suffering because of this fact.