By contrast, Kantians should certainly not primarily respond to questions that are global in scope by means of a view that begins by asking questions about the scope of beneficence though this is not to assert that some self-declared "Kantians" do not do just this. Perhaps one of the reasons for this reflex is due to the correct intuition that there needs to be some appeal made to specific actors for the problems at issue to be addressed. It is, however, noticeable, that the majority of actions that can be requested from individuals in relation to matters of global concern tend only to revolve within the area of charity, an area that can hardly, alone, address the questions at issue with the desired throughness or coherence.
Rather than thinking of questions of global concern in such terms it is useful instead to attend to the question of such concerns as a matter of justice, that is, as requiring reflections on the kinds of institutions that can be developed such that a response to global inequities has some kind of chance of being resolved in ways that reflectively mirror those that can shape the reasons for forming a state. Kant himself does this in various ways in the different texts that are concerned with international matters and it is notable that these texts do not address international questions through the prism of the virtue of beneficence.