Egalitarianism Reconsidered

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2011 papers

Abstract

This paper argues that egalitarian theories should be judged by the degree to which they meet four different challenges. Fundamentalist egalitarianism, which contends that certain inequalities are intrinsically bad or unjust regardless of their consequences, fails to meet these challenges. Building on discussions by T.M. Scanlon and David Miller, we argue that egalitarianism is better understood in terms of commitments to six egalitarian objectives. A consequence of our view, in contrast to Martin O’Neill’s “non-intrinsic egalitarianism,” is that egalitarianism is better understood as a family of views than as a single ethical position.

Related Papers

• → Egalitarianism and the Generation of Inequality(1988)112 cited
• → The Male Is Not Like the Female (Q 3:36): The Question of Gender Egalitarianism in the Qur’?n(2009)8 cited
• → Egalitarianism and Management of Education(2004)4 cited
• → Henry Miller : New Perspectives(2015)1 cited
• → Conclusion: Assessing the Prospects for Egalitarianism(2014)