This paper examines Rawls’ duty of assistance (DOA). It argues that some of the major criticisms that have been levelled against the DOA are based on a mischaracterisation of Rawls’ position in ‘LP’. The paper also argues that what many of Rawls’ critics have failed to appreciate is not how little Rawls’ DOA asks well-ordered peoples to do, but rather how much. The paper suggest that, taken at face value, the latter is in fact is too much to ask and much more than we can realistically achieve or allow ourselves to attempt. Finally, the paper provides a sketch of how to reconceptualise the DOA in a way that both addresses the aforementioned objection and, at the same time, is compatible with ‘LP’s general framework.
