Abstract

This paper contrasts two theoretical approaches to global justice: first, egalitarianism which aims at equal life chances for everyone and second, nonegalitarian humanism which ‹only› aims at decent living conditions for all . The paper puts forward a double critique of egalitarianism. The first in principle objection against egalitarianism is that it confuses the uncontroversial claim that justice must be universal with the controversial claim that justice must aim at relational equality. With Nietzsche, the wish to level life chances can be regarded as an expression of envy or resentment. Justice is not about compensating all kinds of good and bad luck. Justice is about guaranteeing access to a threshold of decent living for everyone. The second objection against egalitarianism is that it does not leave enough space for national identity and partiality and thus demands too much from us on the global scale