Social entrepreneurs face a dilemma. When making decisions about corporate giving, should they prioritize groups with whom they share some historical, national, or emotional tie or should they maximize the overall effectiveness of their contributions? According to a thesis I call “associationist priority,” the moral reasons to favor stakeholders with whom the entrepreneur shares an associative relationship trump the reasons to promote the impartial good. An important component of the argument for associationist priority is the premise that some nonvoluntary associations, including those between corporations and members of their communities, create special moral obligations. This essay argues against associationist priority by way of denying nonvoluntary associative obligations generally. This expands the moral discretion corporate social entrepreneurs enjoy both in how they give and to whom they give.

Individuals have various kinds of obligations: keep promises, don’t cause harm, return benefits received from injustices, be partial to loved ones, help the needy and so on. How does this work for group agents? There are two questions here. The first is whether groups can bear the same kinds of obligations as individuals. The second is whether groups’ pro tanto obligations plug into what they all-things-considered ought to do to the same degree that individuals’ pro tanto obligations plug into what they all-things-considered ought to do. We argue for parity on both counts.