Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:04:32.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON CONDITIONAL EGALITARIANISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

NILS HOLTUG
NILS HOLTUG*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Roughly, according to conditional egalitarianism, equality is non-instrumentally valuable, but only if it benefits at least one individual. Some political theorists have argued that conditional egalitarianism has the important virtue that it allows egalitarians to avoid the so-called ‘levelling down’ objection. However, in the present article I argue that conditional egalitarianism does not offer the egalitarian a plausible escape route from this objection. First, I explain the levelling down objection and suggest some particular concerns from which it derives its force. Then I provide a more precise definition of conditional egalitarianism. Finally, I give two arguments against this principle. According to the first, it violates the transitivity of the betterness relation (or more specifically, ‘betterness with respect to equality’). According to the second, there is no plausible explanation of why equality must benefit at least one individual in order to be non-instrumentally valuable.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 45 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brian, Barry. 1989. Theories of justice. Harvester-WheatsheafGoogle Scholar
John, Broome. 2004. Weighing lives. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
John, Broome. forthcoming. Equality versus priority: a useful distinction. In “Goodness” and “fairness”: ethical issues in health resource allocation, Wikler, Daniel and Murray, Christopher J.L (eds.). World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2000. The Pareto argument for inequality. In The ideal of equality, Clayton, Matthew and Williams, Andrew (eds.). Macmillan, 162–81Google Scholar
Jonathan, Dancy. 1993. Moral reasons. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Fred, Feldman. 2004. Pleasure and the good life: concerning the nature, varieties, and plausibility of hedonism. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Marc, Fleurbaey. forthcoming. Equality versus priority: how relevant is the distinction? In “Goodness” and “fairness”: ethical issues in health resource allocation, Wikler, Daniel and Murray, Christopher J.L (eds.). World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
David, Heyd. 1992. Genethics: moral issues in the creation of people. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Nils, Holtug. 1998. Egalitarianism and the levelling down objection. Analysis 58: 166–74Google Scholar
Nils, Holtug. 2003. Good for whom? Theoria: 69: 4–20Google Scholar
Nils, Holtug. 2004. Person-affecting moralities. In The repugnant conclusion: essays on population ethics, Ryberg, Jesper and Tännsjö, Torbjörn (eds.). KluwerGoogle Scholar
Nils, Holtug. 2006a. Equality, priority and levelling down. In Contemporary Ethical Issues, Parks, Albert G. (ed). Nova Publishers, 97–112Google Scholar
Nils, Holtug. 2006b. Prioritarianism. In Egalitarianism: new essays on the nature and value of equality, Holtug, Nils and Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (eds.). Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John L. 1985. The combination of partially ordered preferences. In Persons and values, vol. 2, Mackie, John L. Clarendon Press, 249–53Google Scholar
Andrew, Mason. 2001. Egalitarianism and the levelling down objection. Analysis 61: 246–54Google Scholar
Dennis, McKerlie. 1996. Equality. Ethics 106: 274–96Google Scholar
Derek, Parfit. 1991. Equality or priority?, The Lindley Lecture. University of Kansas. Reprinted in The ideal of equality, Clayton, Matthew and Williams, Andrew (eds.). Macmillan 2000, 81–125Google Scholar
John, Rawls. 1971. A theory of justice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Raz. 1986. The morality of freedom. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry S. 1987. Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy & Public Affairs 16: 138–87Google Scholar
Temkin, Larry S. 1993. Inequality. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry S. 1996. A continuum argument for intransitivity. Philosophy & Public Affairs 25: 175–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry S. 2000. Equality, priority, and the levelling down objection. In The ideal of equality, Clayton, Matthew and Williams, Andrew (eds.). MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry S. 2003. Personal versus impersonal principles: reconsidering the slogan. Theoria 69: 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertil, Tungodden. 2003. The value of equality. Economics and Philosophy 19: 1–44Google Scholar
Peter, Vallentyne. 2000. Equality, efficiency, and the priority of the worse-off. Economics and Philosophy 16: 1–19Google Scholar
Albert, Wheale. 1980. The impossibility of liberal egalitarianism. Analysis 40: 13–19Google Scholar
Williams, Andrew D. 1995. The revisionist difference principle. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25: 257–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar