ABSTRACT
The assignment of responsibility for risks often underlies societal discussions, albeit not always explicitly. First, it could be – and frequently is – argued that responsibility ascriptions should be fair. Something needs to be done, and, by ascribing responsibility to one or more agents, a division of labour is established, the aim of which is to facilitate a solution. There is, in a sense, a moral imperative that something ought to be done, and the distribution of responsibility distributes the "oughts" in a – hopefully – reasonably effective way. When assigning responsibility for public health problems, it is reasonable to require that responsibility ascriptions be effective, and that they should contribute to a positive change, such as a reduction of mortality or risk. Libertarian views on the importance of respecting individual liberty will serve as an example of a merit-based perspective on how to ascribe responsibility in the area of public health.
