Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):939-951 (2013)

Authors
Matthew Rendall
University of Nottingham
Abstract
Michael Otsuka, Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey have challenged the priority view in favour of a theory based on competing claims. The present paper shows how their argument can be used to recast the priority view. All desert claims in distributive justice are comparative. The stronger a party’s claims to a given benefit, the greater is the value of her receiving it. Ceteris paribus, the worse-off have stronger claims on welfare, and benefits to them matter more. This can account for intuitions that at first appear egalitarian, as the analysis of an example of Larry Temkin’s shows. The priority view, properly understood, is desert-adjusted utilitarianism under the assumption that no other claims pertain
Keywords Priority view  Egalitarianism  Desert-adjusted utilitarianism  Risk
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-013-9420-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point.R. M. Hare (ed.) - 1981 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Equality or Priority?Derek Parfit - 2002 - In Matthew Clayton & Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 81-125.
Why Sufficiency is Not Enough.Paula Casal - 2007 - Ethics 117 (2):296-326.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Prioritarianism: Room for Desert?Matthew D. Adler - 2018 - Utilitas 30 (2):172-197.
Prioritarianism: A Response to Critics.Matthew D. Adler & Nils Holtug - 2019 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 18 (2):101-144.
Prioritarianism: Ex Ante, Ex Post, or Factualist Criterion of Rightness?Nils Holtug - 2019 - Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (2):207-228.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Desert as Fit: An Axiomatic Analysis.Gustaf Arrhenius - 2006 - In Kris McDaniel, Jason R. Raibley, Richard Feldman & Michael E. Zimmerman (eds.), The Good, the Right, Life And Death: Essays in Honor of Fred Feldman. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Co. pp. 3-17.
Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism II.David McCarthy - 2008 - Economics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-33.
The Geometry of Desert.Shelly Kagan - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Just Deserts and Needs.Gillian Brock - 1999 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):165-188.
In Defence of the Priority View.Thomas Porter - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (3):349-364.
Equality, Priority and Person-Affecting Value.Ingmar Persson - 2001 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):23-39.
Monism and Intrinsicality.Kelly Trogdon - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.
Two Claims About Desert.Nathan Hanna - 2013 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (1):41-56.
Brute Luck Equality and Desert.Peter Vallentyne - 2003 - In Sabrina Olsaretti (ed.), Desert and Justice. Clarendon Press. pp. 169--185.
Egalitarianism: Is Leximin the Only Option?Bertil Tungodden - 2000 - Economics and Philosophy 16 (2):229-245.
Equality and Priority.Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson - 2005 - Utilitas 17 (3):299-309.
Reply to Crisp.Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve - 2011 - Utilitas 23 (1):109-114.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-04-02

Total views
315 ( #24,803 of 2,403,866 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
73 ( #9,568 of 2,403,866 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes