Charity or justice
On the axis: Moral demandingness · the global economic order
If distant misery stems from unjust institutions we benefit from, giving is no longer enough: the duty would be to repair and transform the order, not to give alms. Is individual giving a duty, or the alibi of an ongoing injustice?
Justification
The moral demand is high: always act from duty and not from mere conformity, subjecting all one's maxims to the universal law. Kant tempers this by distinguishing perfect duties, strict and without exception, from imperfect duties such as beneficence or the cultivation of one's talents, which leave latitude to judgment, holding back from an extreme maximalism.
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, section II · Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Virtue
Justification
Kant refuses to let a government impose its conception of happiness on citizens: a paternalistic power would be "the greatest despotism". Yet he does not reduce the state to protecting holdings acquired outside any public condition, since mine and thine become conclusive only in the civil state. He thus authorises taxing the propertied to support those who cannot provide for themselves, for the sake of the people's own preservation. This is redistribution as relief: it aims neither at equal fortunes nor at offsetting inequalities of birth and talent.
Doctrine of Right, §41-49 and General Remark C · On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, II
Anchors: Kant · Pogge
leads to: Distributive justice (Does justice stop at borders?)