Skip to main content

The Strange Neglect of the Basis of Equality in Contemporary Egalitarianism

  • Chapter
Book cover The Nature and Limits of Human Equality
  • 68 Accesses

Abstract

A view widely held in contemporary Western ethical thinking is that all serious thought about political ethics in the modern world must begin with a belief in human equality that is substantive rather than formal. This is the belief that justifies Ronald Dworkin’s claim, in a phrase frequently endorsed, that modern political philosophy inhabits an egalitarian plateau.1 This book will begin with a discussion of what this substantive sense of equality is. However, the book’s main aim is to explore the very serious problems that arise from the way in which this sense of equality has been standardly justified and to propose a revision of that justification which will resolve these problems. Subsequently, the implications of this revised version for acceptable principles of justice, at national and international levels, will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. This claim is made by Ian Carter (2011), ‘Respect and the Basis of Equality’, Ethics, 121/3, 538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. R. Dworkin, (1973) ‘The Original Position’, University of Chicago Law Review, 40/3, 532.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. S. Mill attributes this claim to Bentham. J. S. Mill, (1910), ‘Utilitarianism’ in Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government (London: J. M. Dent), 58.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. M. Hare, (1981) Moral Thinking (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 20–24.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. A. Sen, (1992), Inequality Reexamined (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Plato, (1941), Republic, tr. F. M. Cornford (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 311.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aristotle, (1921), Politics, tr. B. Jowett (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1252

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hastings Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil: A Treatise on Moral Philosophy 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), 238–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Hurka, (1993), Perfectionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 167–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. J. Rousseau, (1968) The Social Contract (London: Penguin Books), 68.

    Google Scholar 

  11. The phrase echoes John Locke but the major contemporary libertarian is R. Nozick, (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  12. See the useful collection of most of these and many others in L. P. Pojman and R. Westmoreland (eds) (1997), Equality: Selected Readings (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  13. This phrase is to be found in Rawls, (1980), ‘Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory’, Journal of Philosophy, 77/9, 543

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rawls, (1985), ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14/3, 242.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Rawls, (1999a), A Theory of Justice (rev. edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Dworkin, (1981) ‘What is Equality? Part 1, Equality of Welfare and Part 2, Equality of Resources’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10/3, 4

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Arneson, (1989), ‘Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’, Philosophical Studies, 56/1, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. G. A. Cohen, (1989), ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’, Ethics, 99/4, 906–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. J. Wolff, (1998),‘Fairness, Respect and the Egalitarian Ethos’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27/2, 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. E. Anderson, (1999), ‘What is the Point of Equality?’ Ethics, 109/2, 287–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. D. Miller, (1998), ‘Justice and Equality’, in A. Mason (ed.), Ideals of Equality (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers), 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Scheffler, (2003), ‘What is Egalitarianism?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31/1, 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. R. Dworkin,(2003), Sovereign Virtue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. S. Temkin, Inequality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 247–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. T. Scanlon, ‘The Diversity of Objections to Inequality’, Essays in Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 202–18.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. Cupit ‘The Basis of Equality’, Philosophy, 75/1 (2000), 105–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2013 John Charvet

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Charvet, J. (2013). The Strange Neglect of the Basis of Equality in Contemporary Egalitarianism. In: The Nature and Limits of Human Equality. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137329165_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics