Encyclopedia of Global Justice

2011 Edition
| Editors: Deen K. Chatterjee

Global Egalitarianism

  • Bruce M. Landesman
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_96

The core claim of Global Egalitarianism is that social justice demands equality of well-being for all human beings on the planet. This claim, as stated, is literally too strong and too simple to capture accurately the more complex claims of the global egalitarian. But it provides the right intuitive starting point for further discussion and clarification.

Global Egalitarianism is often called Cosmopolitanism. It needs to be distinguished from two other main views. In supporting equality worldwide, Cosmopolitanism diminishes the importance of the nation-state as the prime arena to which social justice applies. Justice applies to relations among nations and people across the whole world.

A second view holds that justice demands equality within the bounds of a society or nation-state, but denies that equality is a demand of justice among societies or nations or among people generally. We can call this Social Egalitarianism. It supports equality “domestically,” but not globally. It thus...

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


  1. Beitz C (1999) Political theory and international relations, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks T (ed) (2008) The global justice reader. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Caney S (2005) Justice beyond borders: a global political theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hart HLA (1955) Are there any natural rights? Philos Rev 64:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hume D (1751) An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. Section III, 1983. Hackett, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller D (2005) Against global egalitarianism. J Ethics 9(1/2):55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nagel T (2005) The problem of global justice. Philos Public Aff 33(2):113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy state and utopia. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Rawls J (1999) The law of peoples. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Shue H (1996) Basic rights, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Tamir Y (1993) Liberal nationalism. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Tan K-C (2004) Justice without borders: cosmopolitanism, nationalism and patriotism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tan K-C (2008) A defense of luck egalitarianism. J Philos CV/11:665–690Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce M. Landesman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA