["Equality\tof\topportunity Can\t you\t imagine\t somebody\t saying\t they\t didn\u2019t\t think\t that\t people\t should\t have equality\tof\topportunity?\tEven\tthe\tmost\tfervent\tanti-egalitarian\tis\tlikely\tto\tsay\tthat\tof course\t she\t endorses\t that\t kind\t of\t equality.\t It\u2019s\t equality\t of\t something\t else\t \u2013 something\t more\t hostile\t to\t individual\t freedom,\t or\t more\t damaging\t to\t an\t efficient economy\t \u2013\t that\t she\t opposes.\t Equality\t of\t opportunity\t is\t the\t acceptable\t face\t of equality,\t commanding\t support\t across\t the\t political\t spectrum.\t Does\t this\t mean\t that those\t of\t all\t political\t persuasions\t do\t actually\t agree\t on\t some\t fundamental\t value? Unfortunately\t not.\t The\t appearance\t of\t consensus\t is\t illusory.\t Instead,\t the\t term \u2018equality\tof\topportunity\u2019\tis\tused\tto\tmean\ta\trange\tof\tquite\tdifferent\tand\tincompatible things.\t Real\t and\t important\t disagreement\t is\t concealed\t by\t an\t apparently uncontroversial\t form\t of\t words.\t Politicians\t sometimes\t like\t it\t when\t this\t happens. They\t can\t seem\t to\t be\t agreeing\t with\t everybody.\t Philosophers\t always\t hate\t it.\t They want\t to\t know\t precisely\t what\t people\t mean\t or\t believe,\t to\t dig\t down\t behind\t the innocuous\tveneer\tand\texpose\tthe\tdisagreement. From\tthe\tmany\tdifferent\tthings\tthat\tget\tcalled\t\u2018equality\tof\topportunity\u2019,\tlet\u2019s\tpick out\t three,\t which\t I\u2019ll\t call\t the\t \u2018minimal\u2019,\t the\t \u2018conventional\u2019\t and\t the\t \u2018radical\u2019 conceptions.\t These\t terms\t are\t made\t up\t by\t me\t and\t don\u2019t\t refer\t to\t any\t well-known labels\tin\tthe\tliterature,\tso\tdon\u2019t\tworry\tif\tthey\tseem\tstrange.\t(In\tcase\tit\thelps,\tanother philosopher\t calls\t them\t \u2018right-liberal\u2019,\t \u2018left-liberal\u2019\t and\t \u2018socialist\u2019.)\t (Generally,\t in my\tview\t\u2013\tthough\tbe\twarned\tthat\tthis\tis\tsomewhat\tcontroversial\t\u2013\tand\tthinking\tas\ta philosopher\tnot\ta\tpolitician,\tit\tdoesn\u2019t\tmatter\twhat\ta\tposition\tor\targument\tis\tcalled. That\tis\tjust\ta\tmatter\tof\twords.\tWhat\tmatters\tis\tits\tcontent.\tWe\tphilosophers\tspend\ta lot\tof\ttime\tworrying\tabout\twhat\twords\tmean,\tbut\tthis\tis\tnot\tbecause\twe\tcare\tabout what\t words\t are\t used\t to\t refer\t to\t what\t ideas.\t We\t have\t to\t work\t out\t how\t people\t are using \t the\t wo r ds\t they\t do \t so \t that\t we\t can\t see\t what\t they\t mean.\t Once\t we\u2019ve\t do ne\t that, the\twords\tthey\tuse\tdrop\tout\tof\tthe\tpicture.\tI\u2019d\tbe\thappy\tto\tcall\tthe\tthree\tconceptions Tom,\tDick\tand\tHarry\t\u2013\tas\tlong\tas\twe\tall\tknew\twhat\teach\tof\tthem\tmeant.\tTrue,\tthose names\twouldn\u2019t\tbe\tvery\thelpful\tto\tthe\treader,\tsince\tthey\tdon\u2019t\tgive\tany\tclues\tabout the\t content.\t True,\t once\t we\t had\t decided\t which\t conception\t we\t favoured\t we\t would probably\t want\t to\t make\t it\t sound\t attractive,\t which\t might\t well\t lead\t us\t back\t into\t the business\tof\tusing\tthe\tnormally\tvalue-laden\tlanguage\tof\t\u2018equality\u2019\tand\t\u2018opportunity\u2019. But,\t in\t principle,\t we\t could\t proceed\t with\t the\t business\t of\t analysing\t and\t assessing claims\tin\tthis\t\u2013\tand\tevery\tother\t\u2013\tarea\tusing\tany\twords,\tas\tlong\tas\twe\tall\tknew\twhat we\tall\tmeant\tby\tthem.) What,\tthen,\tis\tthe\tcontent\tof\twhat\tI\u2019m\tcalling\tthe\t\u2018minimal\u2019\tconception\tof\tequality of\t opportunity?\t This\t means\t simply\t that\t a\t person\u2019s\t race\t or\t gender\t or\t religion should\tnot\tbe\tallowed\tto\taffect\ttheir\tchances\tof\tbeing\tselected\tfor\ta\tjob,\tof\tgetting\ta g o o d\t educatio n,\t and\t so \t o n.\t When\t we\t talk\t abo ut\t equal\t o ppo r tunities\t leg islatio n,\t o r","admissions\t or\t hiring\t policies,\t it\t is\t this\t kind\t of\t attempt\t to\t combat\t prejudice\t or discrimination\t that\t we\t have\t in\t mind.\t On\t this\t view,\t race,\t gender\t or\t religion\t are\t \u2013 usually\t \u2013\t reasons\t irrelevant\t to\t the\t question\t of\t who\t is\t the\t best\t person\t to\t do\t a particular\t job,\t or\t get\t a\t place\t at\t university.\t What\t matters\t is\t their\t skills,\t their potential,\t their\t relevant\t competences.\t The\t way\t to\t secure\t this\t kind\t of\t equality\t of o ppo r tunity\t is\t by\t car eful\t mo nito r ing \t and\t r eg ulatio n\t o f\t r ecr uitment\t and\t pr o mo tio n procedures\tin\teducational\tinstitutions\tand\tthe\tlabour\tmarket. For\tmost\tpeople,\thowever,\tthis\tis\tnot\tenough.\tThose\tendorsing\tthe\t\u2018conventional\u2019 conception\t hold\t that\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t requires\t more\t than\t that\t people\u2019s relevant\tcompetences\t\u2013\trather\tthan\tthe\tprejudices\tof\tothers\t\u2013\tdetermine\twhether\tor not\tthey\tget\tthe\tjobs\tor\teducation\tthey\tapply\tfor.\tIt\tmatters\talso\tthat\tall\thave\tan\tequal chance\t of\t acquiring\t those\t relevant\t competences.\t People\u2019s\t prospects\t in\t life\t should depend\t o n\t their \t ability\t and\t effo r t,\t no t\t o n\t their \t so cial\t backg r o und.\t T he\t fact\t that\t the poorest\t50\tper\tcent\tof\tits\thouseholds\tsupply\tonly\t7\tper\tcent\tof\tits\tuniversity\tstudents suggests\tthat\tthe\tUK\tdoes\tnot\tgive\tits\tchildren\tequality\tof\topportunity\tin\tthat\tsense. The\t fact\t that\t middle-class\t children\t are\t roughly\t three\t times\t more\t likely\t to\t get middle-class\t jobs\t than\t are\t working-class\t children,\t and\t roughly\t three\t times\t less likely\tto\tget\tworking-class\tjobs,\tsuggests\tthat\tclass\tbackground\tmakes\ta\tdifference to\t people\u2019s\t job\t prospects.\t (I\t say\t \u2018suggests\u2019\t because\t it\u2019s\t possible\t that\t middle-class children\t are\t that\t much\t more\t likely\t to\t be\t clever\t and\t motivated.\t In\t that\t case\t these unequal\tprobabilities\twould\tnot\treflect\tinequality\tof\topportunity\tin\tthe\tconventional sense.\t They\t would\t result\t rather\t from\t poor\t or\t working-class\t children\t not\t being clever\t enough,\t or\t working\t hard\t enough,\t to\t take\t advantage\t of\t their\t equal opportunities.)\tOn\tthe\tconventional\tview,\tcoming\tfrom\ta\tpoor\tfamily\tshould\tnot\tbe relevant\t to\t one\u2019s\t chance\t of\t getting\t into\t university,\t or\t getting\t a\t good\t job.\t That should\tdepend\ton\ta\tperson\u2019s\tnatural\tability\tand\tthe\tchoices\tshe\tmakes,\tso\tthe\tstate\tis justified\tin\tlevelling\tthe\tplaying-field. Taking\tconventional\tequality\tof\topportunity\tseriously\tmay\twell\tdemand\textreme measures.\t (Remember\t we\t are\t not\t yet\t discussing\t the\t \u2018radical\u2019\t conception!)\t A person\u2019s\t social\t background\t affects\t her\t prospects\t in\t so\t many\t different\t ways\t that removing\t its\t influence\t altogether\t is\t impossible,\t or\t achievable\t only\t by\t massively restricting\t parental\t freedom,\t almost\t certainly\t by\t abolishing\t the\t institution\t of\t the family.\tThis\tshows\tthat\tthose\twho\tsay\tthat\tthey\tbelieve\tin\tequality\tof\topportunity\tof this\tsecond\tkind\tusually\tonly\tthink\tthat\tthey\tdo.\tThey\tmay\tgenuinely\twant\tto\tremove some\t of\t the\t mechanisms\t by\t which\t children\u2019s\t differing\t social\t backgrounds influence\t their\t life-chances.\t Perhaps\t they\t oppose\t private\t education,\t support universal\t grants\t for\t students\t and\t endorse\t policies\t aimed\t at\t giving\t disadvantaged children\t access\t to\t the\t kind\t of\t pre-school\t education\t that\t research\t has\t shown\t to\t be hugely\t important\t to\t their\t development.\t Presumably\t they\t accept\t that\t policies promoting\tthis\tkind\tof\tequality\tof\topportunity\trequire\ta\tredistribution\tof\tresources","\u2013\tthe\tdisadvantaged\tthemselves\tcan\thardly\tpay\tthe\tcost\tof\tpolicies\tdesigned\tto\tgive their\t children\t a\t more\t equal\t start\t in\t life.\t This\t is\t levelling\t the\t playing-field understood\t as\t making\t it\t more\t level.\t But\t it\t is\t not\t making\t it\t completely\t level.\t We know\t that\t children\t whose\t parents\t read\t them\t bedtime\t stories\t do\t better\t than\t those whose\tparents\tdo\tnot.\tBut\tI\tdon\u2019t\tknow\tmany\tpeople\twhose\tcommitment\tto\tequality of\t opportunity\t leads\t them\t to\t wish\t to\t ban\t bedtime\t stories\t (or\t to\t support\t a\t law r equir ing\t par ents\t to\t r ead\t to\t their \t childr en).\t As\t so\t often,\t a\t political\t ideal\t ther e\t ar e good\treasons\tto\tsupport\tcomes\tinto\tconflict\twith\tother\tthings\tthat\twe\tvalue\t\u2013\there, the\t autonomy\t of\t the\t family.\t And\t many\t people\t say\t they\t want\t \u2018equality\t of opportunity\u2019\twhen\twhat\tthey\treally\twant\t\u2013\tall\tthings\tconsidered\t\u2013\tis\tactually\tjust\tless inequality\tof\topportunity. On\t the\t radical\t view,\t even\t the\t full-blooded\t pursuit\t of\t conventional\t equality\t of opportunity\twould\tstill\tnot\tbe\tenough.\tCorrecting\tfor\tsocial\tdisadvantage\tdoes\tnot really\t yield\t equality\t of\t opportunity,\t because\t it\t leaves\t untouched\t natural\t or\t inborn disadvantage.\t People\t should\t have\t equal\t opportunities\t in\t the\t sense\t that\t their prospects\tare\tinfluenced\tneither\tby\ttheir\tsocial\tposition\tnor\tby\ttheir\tposition\tin\tthe distribution\tof\tnatural\ttalents.\tOnly\tin\tthat\tcase\twill\tdifferent\toutcomes\treally\treflect people\u2019s\tchoices\trather\tthan\tunchosen\tdifferences\tin\ttheir\tcircumstances.\tOnly\tthen will\tpeople\thave\tan\tequal\tchance\tof\tliving\tthe\tlife\tof\ttheir\tchoice,\trather\tthan\thaving their\t set\t of\t feasible\t options\t determined\t by\t factors\t beyond\t their\t control.\t It\u2019s\t not enough\t for\t clever\t poor\t children\t to\t have\t the\t same\t opportunities\t as\t clever\t rich children.\t Equality\t of\t opportunity\t requires\t also\t that\t untalented\t children\t \u2013\t whether rich\t or\t poor\t \u2013\t should\t have\t the\t same\t opportunities\t as\t talented\t children.\t Not necessarily\topportunities\tto\tdo\tparticular\tjobs.\tIt\twould\tbe\todd\tto\twant\tthe\tmusically inept\t to\t have\t the\t same\t chance\t of\t becoming\t a\t concert\t pianist\t as\t the\t child\t prodigy. But\t o ppo r tunities\t to \t do \t par ticular \t jo bs\t ar e\t no t\t the\t same\t as\t o ppo r tunities\t to \t g et\t the rewards\t usually\t associated\t with\t those\t jobs.\t Someone\t who\t endorses\t the\t radical conception\tof\tequality\tof\topportunity\tcan\taccept\tthat\tthe\ttalented\tand\tthe\tuntalented should\thave\tunequal\tchances\tof\tgetting\tparticular\tjobs.\tWhat\tshe\trejects\tis\tthe\tidea that\tthey\tshould\thave\tunequal\tchances\tof\tgetting\tthe\tsame\trewards. Is\t the\t conventional\t position\t stable?\t Can\t it\t resist\t sliding\t into\t the\t radical\t view? Those\t who\t think\t not\t argue\t as\t follows.\t The\t reason\t to\t endorse\t the\t conventional co nceptio n\t o f\t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity,\t r ather \t than\t just\t the\t minimal\t o ne,\t is\t that\t it\t is unfair\tthat\tsocial\tdisadvantage\tshould\thold\tpeople\tback.\tWhy\tshould\tsome\tbe\tborn with\t a\t silver\t spoon\t in\t their\t mouth\t \u2013\t on\t a\t well-trodden\t path\t from\t posh\t family\t to posh\tschool\tto\tposh\tuniversity\tto\tposh\tjob\t\u2013\twhile\tothers\tgo\tto\tworse\tschools,\tand have\t to\t think\t hard\t about\t whether\t they\t can\t afford\t to\t stay\t on\t at\t school\t or\t go\t to univer sity?\t And\t what\t makes\t it\t unfair \t is\t that,\t as\t far \t as\t childr en\t ar e\t co ncer ned,\t it\t is just\ta\tmatter\tof\tluck\twhat\tkind\tof\tfamily\tthey\tare\tborn\tinto.\tBut\tif\tthis\tis\tthe\treason, it\tseems\thard\tto\tescape\tthe\tRawlsian\tthought\t(discussed\textensively\tin\tPart\t1)\tthat\tit","is\talso\ta\tmatter\tof\tluck\thow\tclever\tpeople\tare.\tThose\twho\tthink\tthat\twe\tshould\tseek to\t provide\t greater\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t between\t those\t from\t different backg r o unds\t with\t similar \t levels\t o f\t natur al\t ability\t want\t a\t fair \t co mpetitio n\t in\t which \u2018mer it\u2019\t alo ne,\t and\t no t\t class\t backg r o und,\t pr o duces\t the\t o utco me.\t But\t if\t what\t makes that\tcompetition\tfairer\tis\tthat\tit\treduces\tthe\tinfluence\tof\t\u2018morally\tarbitrary\u2019\tfactors \u2013\t facto r s\t fo r \t which\t individuals\t ar e\t no t\t r espo nsible\t \u2013\t we\t sho uld\t be\t co mmitted\t also to \t pr o viding \t g r eater \t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t between\t tho se\t with\t differ ent\t levels\t o f natural\t ability.\t After\t all,\t people\t aren\u2019t\t responsible\t for\t that\t either.\t (Part\t 1\u2019s discussion\tof\tdesert\tis\talso\trelevant\there.) One\t way\t of\t resisting\t the\t radical\t version\t of\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t is\t to\t reject equality\t of\t opportunity\t altogether,\t perhaps\t by\t affirming\t a\t principle\t about\t self- ownership,\t like\t Nozick.\t Nozick\t is\t an\t honourable\t exception\t to\t my\t claim\t that everybody\t endorses\t equality\t of\t opportunity.\t Being\t a\t political\t philosopher,\t rather than\ta\tpolitician,\the\tis\tready\tto\tacknowledge\tthat\this\tlibertarian\ttheory\tof\tjustice\tis in\tno\tway\tconcerned\tto\tensure\tthat\tpeople\thave\tequal\topportunities\tof\tany\tkind.\tOn his\t view,\t people\t can\t hire\t anybody\t they\t like,\t on\t whatever\t grounds,\t so\t he\t does\t not even\t endorse\t the\t minimal\t version.\t This\t amounts\t to\t getting\t off\t the\t train\t before\t it leaves\t the\t station\t and\t is\t unlikely\t to\t appeal\t to\t those\t who\t support\t the\t conventional conception. The\t conventional\t conception\t would\t not\t slide\t into\t the\t radical\t one\t if\t it\t were argued\t for\t in\t a\t different\t way.\t Instead\t of\t claiming\t that\t we\t should\t compensate\t for so cial\t disadvantag e\t o n\t fair ness\t g r o unds,\t we\t mig ht\t seek\t to \t r educe\t \u2013\t o r \t eliminate\t \u2013 the\t influence\t of\t social\t background\t for\t a\t different\t reason.\t There\t is\t a\t kind\t of inefficiency\t that\t comes\t when\t clever\t children\t from\t poor\t families\t find\t it\t harder\t to get\t to\t university\t than\t not\t so\t clever\t children\t from\t better-off\t ones.\t In\t economic terms,\t this\t kind\t of\t inequality\t of\t opportunity\t implies\t a\t sub-optimal\t allocation\t of resources.\t The\t more\t level\t the\t playing-field,\t the\t less\t distortion\t or\t bias\t in\t the processes\t by\t which\t individuals\t are\t selected\t for\t education\t and\t jobs,\t the\t more efficient\t the\t conversion\t of\t human\t resources\t into\t marketable\t skills\t (and\t hence\t the production\t of\t things\t that\t other\t people\t want\t produced).\t Making\t things\t harder\t for children\t of\t disadvantaged\t families\t implies\t squandering\t a\t \u2018pool\t of\t ability\u2019\t from which\twe\tcould\tall\tbenefit. This\t ar g ument\t has\t indeed\t been\t influential\t in\t making \t the\t case\t fo r \t state\t actio n\t to improve\t the\t opportunities\t of\t those\t who\t would\t otherwise\t be\t held\t back\t by\t their so cial\t cir cumstances.\t But\t it\t is\t a\t co mpletely\t differ ent\t ar g ument.\t It\t tells\t us\t to \t wo r r y about\t people\t having\t unequal\t chances\t due\t to\t social\t disadvantage\t only\t where\t and because\t their\t doing\t so\t is\t economically\t inefficient.\t The\t objection\t to\t inequality\t of opportunity\tis\tno\tlonger\tthat\tit\tis\tunfair\tto\tindividuals.\tIt\tis\trather\tthat\tit\tis\twasteful for\tsociety.\tBecause\tit\tneglects\tthis\tjustice-based\taspect\tof\tthe\tconcern\tfor\tequality of\topportunity,\tthose\twho\tendorse\tthe\tconventional\tconception\tare\tunlikely\tto\tfind","it\t attr active.\t (Unless,\t that\t is,\t it\t is\t combined\t with\t the\t view\t that\t eco no mic\t efficiency matter s\t because\t it\t means\t that\t ther e\t will\t be\t mo r e\t r eso ur ces\t to \t devo te\t to \t tho se\t who , through\tno\tfault\tof\ttheir\town,\tare\tbadly\toff.\tIn\tthat\tcase\tthe\treason\tto\tmake\toptimal use\tof\tthe\tpool\tof\tability\tis\tso\tthat\twe\tcan\tgive\tmost\thelp\tto\tthose\twho\tneed\tit\tmost. Co nventio nal\t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t is\t her e\t valued\t instr umentally,\t as\t a\t means\t no t an\tend,\tbut\twhat\tit\tis\ta\tmeans\tto\tmight\titself\tbe\ta\tmorally\tdesirable\t\u2013\tperhaps\teven\ta fair\t\u2013\toutcome.) Equality\t of\t opportunity,\t so\t innocuous\t on\t the\t surface,\t turns\t out\t to\t be\t highly controversial.\t Part\t of\t its\t attraction\t is\t precisely\t that\t it\t seems\t less\t demanding\t than equality\t of\t outcome.\t It\t seems\t to\t conflict\t less\t with\t other\t things\t we\t have\t reason\t to value.\t One\t often\t finds\t equality\t of\t outcome\t being\t rejected,\t while\t equality\t of opportunity\tis\theld\tup\tas\tobviously\tworthy\tof\tsupport.\tBut\teven\tif\tthis\twere\tright\t\u2013 at\tthe\tlevel\tof\tfundamental\tprinciple\t\u2013\tit\twould\tstill\tbe\timportant\tto\tremember\tthat the\tachievement\tof\t(greater)\tequality\tof\topportunity\tmight\twell\trequire,\tor\ton\tsome views\t even\t entail,\t (greater)\t equality\t with\t respect\t to\t outcomes.\t Let\t me\t end\t this section\tby\texploring\tsome\tof\tthese. Some\t ways\t in\t which\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t has\t implications\t for\t equality\t of outcome\t apply\t even\t o n\t the\t co nventional\t view.\t It\t is\t because\t childr en\t ar e\t bo r n\t into households\twith\tunequal\tamounts\tof\tresources\tthat\tthey\thave\tunequal\topportunities. Children\tof\tthe\tadvantaged\thave\tmore\tand\tbetter\topportunities\tthan\tchildren\tof\tthe disadvantaged\tprecisely\tbecause\tthey\tare\tchildren\tof\tthe\tadvantaged.\tSo\tone\tway\tto equalize\t opportunities\t is\t to\t equalize\t starting-points.\t But\t a\t child\u2019s\t starting-point\t \u2013 say\tan\taffluent\tmiddle-class\thousehold\tin\ta\tneighbourhood\twith\tgood\tschools\t\u2013\tis\ta parent\u2019s\toutcome.\tThis\tmeans\tthat,\tif\twe\treally\tcare\tabout\tequalizing\topportunities, we\tneed\tto\tthink\tabout\tequalizing\toutcomes\talso.\tSome\ttake\tthis\tline\tof\targument\tas showing\t the\t incoherence\t of\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t as\t an\t ideal.\t We\t start\t off\t by saying\tthat\twe\twant\tpeople\tto\thave\tequal\topportunities\tso\tthat\ttheir\toutcomes\treflect natur al\t ability\t and\t cho ices\t r ather \t than\t so cial\t cir cumstance.\t But\t in\t o r der \t fo r \t this\t to hold\t also\t for\t their\t children,\t we\t end\t up\t having\t to\t deny\t that\t they\t be\t permitted\t to achieve\t unequal\t outcomes.\t Moreover,\t the\t very\t thing\t that\t people\t often\t choose\t to employ\ttheir\tabilities\tfor\t\u2013\tthe\toutcomes\tthey\tmight\tstrive\tto\tachieve\t\u2013\tis\tprecisely the\t opportunity\t to\t give\t their\t children\t better\t opportunities\t than\t are\t available\t to others! There\tis\tindeed\ta\tproblem\treconciling\tconventional\tequality\tof\topportunity\twith respect\t for\t people\u2019s\t choices\t about\t what\t to\t do\t with\t their\t abilities.\t But\t that\t doesn\u2019t mean\twe\thave\tgot\tthe\tbalance\tright.\tEven\tif\tparents\tstarted\twith\tequal\topportunities and,\t because\t of\t differing\t abilities\t and\t choices,\t ended\t up\t unequal,\t it\t might\t still\t be justified,\tfor\tthe\tsake\tof\tequality\tof\topportunity,\tto\tprevent\tsome\tactions\tthey\tmight take\t to\t pass\t their\t advantages\t on\t to\t their\t children.\t Since\t we\t don\u2019t\t live\t in\t a\t society where\t it\t could\t plausibly\t be\t claimed\t that\t people\u2019s\t unequal\t positions\t have\t indeed","arisen\tsolely\tas\ta\tresult\tof\ttheir\tabilities\tand\tchoices,\tthere\tis\tample\tjustification\tfor so me\t equalizatio n\t o f\t o utco mes\t fo r \t the\t sake\t o f\t g r eater \t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity.\t We have\t already\t noted\t that\t policies\t aimed\t at\t levelling\t the\t playing-field\t by compensating\tchildren\tfor\ttheir\tsocial\tdisadvantage\t\u2013\tsuch\tas\tthe\tprovision\tof\tfree pre-schooling\t in\t deprived\t areas\t \u2013\t cost\t money.\t That\t money\t can\t only\t come\t from those\twho\thave\tit.\tTaking\tmoney\tfrom\tthose\twho\thave\tit\tto\tspend\tit\ton\tthe\teducation of\t those\t who\t do\t not\t is\t redistribution\t of\t resources.\t A\t more\t equal\t distribution\t of resources,\t as\t between\t those\t born\t into\t unequally\t advantaged\t social\t backgrounds, may\t be\t \u2013\t surely\t will\t be\t \u2013\t required\t for\t the\t sake\t of\t conventional\t equality\t of opportunity. On\tthe\tradical\tview,\tthe\tconnection\tbetween\tequality\tof\topportunity\tand\tequality of\toutcome\tis\tmuch\tstronger.\tIt\tis\tnot\tso\tmuch\tthat\tequalizing\toutcomes\tmight\tbe\ta necessary\t means\t to\t the\t equalization\t of\t opportunities.\t It\t is\t rather\t that,\t on\t that conception,\t the\t two\t kinds\t of\t equality\t amount\t to\t the\t same\t thing.\t To\t see\t why, remember\t that\t radical\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t seeks\t to\t correct\t for\t all\t unchosen disadvantages\t natural\t as\t well\t as\t social.\t Where\t this\t is\t achieved,\t differences\t of outcome\tcan\tonly\treflect\tgenuine\tdifferences\tof\ttaste\tand\tchoice.\t(If\tthose\tdifferent outcomes\t reflect\t different\t talents\t or\t family\t background\t or\t tastes\t and\t choices\t for which\t people\t cannot\t be\t held\t responsible\t \u2013\t perhaps\t because\t they\t were\t not\t fully informed\t about\t the\t consequences\t then\t that\t means\t that\t people\t did\t not\t really\t have equal\t opportunity\t in\t the\t radical\t sense.)\t For\t example,\t some\t people\t may\t choose\t to work\t longer\t hours\t than\t others,\t thereby\t earning\t more\t money\t and\t ending\t up\t rich, while\tothers\tmay\tchoose\tto\ttake\tmore\tleisure,\tearning\tjust\tenough\tto\tstay\talive\tand ending\tup\tpoor.\tThey\twill\tthen\tbe\tunequal\twith\trespect\tto\tmoney\toutcomes.\tBut\twill they\t be\t unequal\t overall?\t No,\t they\t will\t have\t equal\t outcomes\t in\t terms\t of\t overall bundles\t of\t \u2018income\t plus\t leisure\u2019.\t It\t looks\t as\t if\t there\t is\t inequality\t here,\t but\t really there\t have\t just\t been\t different\t choices.\t Generalizing,\t we\t can\t say\t that\t as\t long\t as peo ple\t r eally\t ar e\t making \t a\t cho ice,\t and\t ar e\t fully\t info r med\t abo ut\t its\t co nsequences, equality\tof\topportunity\tamounts\tto\tequality\tof\toutcome.\tSomebody\twho\tbelieves\tin equality\t of\t outcome\t has\t no\t reason\t to\t object\t to\t differences\t of\t outcome\t that\t result from\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t in\t the\t radical\t sense,\t because\t these\t differences\t aren\u2019t really\t inequalities.\t If\t they\t do\t indeed\t result\t solely\t from\t people\u2019s\t fully\t informed preferences\tand\tchoices\tfor\twhich\tthey\tare\tgenuinely\tresponsible,\tthen\tthey\tare\tnot really\tunequal\toutcomes\tat\tall.","Gender\tequality T he\t pr evio us\t sectio n\t talked\t a\t lo t\t abo ut\t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t between\t tho se\t bo r n into\t different\t social\t classes\t (conventional),\t and\t between\t those\t born\t with\t different natural\t talents\t (radical).\t But\t it\t hardly\t mentioned\t another\t factor\t that\t many\t see\t as\t a crucial\t aspect\t of\t any\t egalitarian\t political\t agenda:\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t between those\t born\t male\t and\t those\t born\t female.\t (Ditto\t those\t born\t into\t different\t racial\t or ethnic\t g r o ups,\t but\t I\u2019m\t afr aid\t lack\t o f\t space\t means\t I\u2019m\t g o ing \t to \t co ntinue\t to \t ig no r e them.)\tTrue,\tthe\tminimal\tconception\tobjects\tto\tgender\tdiscrimination\tat\tthe\tpoint\tat which\tpeople\tare\tapplying\tfor\tjobs.\tBut\twhat\tabout\tthe\tmore\tcomplex\tprocesses\tthat lead\t many\t to \t r eg ar d\t the\t minimal\t co nceptio n\t as\t inadequate?\t Altho ug h\t the\t extent\t o f the\tinequality\tdiffers\tmassively\tacross\tthe\tglobe,\tand\talthough\tsocieties\tlike\tthe\tUS and\t the\t UK\t have\t seen\t a\t substantial\t reduction\t in\t inequalities\t between\t men\t and women\t over\t the\t years,\t and\t although\t in\t some\t societies\t girls\t are\t now\t doing\t better than\t boys\t in\t educational\t terms,\t there\t is\t still\t a\t sizeable\t pay\t gap\t and\t women\t are significantly\t less\t likely\t to\t make\t it\t into\t top\t jobs.\t One\t might\t assume\t that\t feminists would\twant\tgirls\tto\tenjoy\tequal\tchances\twith\tboys\tfor\temployment\tand\tincome. Things\t are\t not\t that\t simple.\t As\t I\t mentioned\t earlier,\t some\t theorists\t who\t call themselves\t egalitarian\t reject\t this\t kind\t of\t focus\t on\t distributive\t issues,\t favouring\t a \u2018relational\t egalitarianism\u2019\t that\t is\t more\t concerned\t with\t eliminating\t oppressive relationships.\tFeminists\tin\tthis\tcamp\tare\tlikely\tto\twant\tan\tend\tto\tpatriarchy\t(Greek pater\t=\t\u2018father \u2019,\tarche\t=\t\u2018rule\u2019)\t\u2013\tmoving\tbeyond\ta\tsocial\torder\tin\twhich\tmen\thave authority\t over\t women\t who\t are\t subordinate\t to\t them.\t The\t problem\t is\t not\t that\t men and\twomen\thave\tunequal\tchances\tof\tgetting\thigh-paying\tjobs.\tThat\u2019s\tat\tbest\ta\trather tr ivial\t sympto m\t o f\t a\t much\t deeper \t concer n.\t The\t pr oblem\t is\t that\t men\t have\t had\t the power\tto\tstructure\tall\tour\tsocial\tinstitutions\t\u2013\tfamily,\teconomy,\tpolity\t\u2013\tin\tways\tthat suit\tthem.\tIndeed,\tthe\tvery\tway\tthat\twe\tthink\tof\tourselves\tand\tothers\twhen\tit\tcomes to\tgender\t\u2013\twhat\tit\tmeans\tto\tus\tto\tbe\ta\tman\tor\ta\twoman,\twhat\tkind\tof\tbehaviour\tis and\t isn\u2019t\t appropriate\t \u2013\t is\t a\t social\t construction\t that\t reflects\t millennia\t of\t male domination.\t (Some\t of\t this\t happens\t in\t the\t very\t process\t of\t learning\t language.\t The classic\t example\t here\t is\t that\t English\t contains\t many\t words\t for\t a\t sexually promiscuous\t woman,\t all\t with\t negative\t connotations,\t hardly\t any\t for\t a\t sexually promiscuous\tman,\tnearly\tall\tof\tthem\twith\tpositive\tconnotations.)\tAnd\tfor\tsome,\tto worry\t about\t women\u2019s\t ability\t to\t compete\t for\t top\t jobs\t is\t already\t to\t adopt\t a distinctively\t male\t perspective\t (competitive,\t ambitious,\t self-interested)\t on\t what matters.\tGender\tequality,\ton\tthis\tview,\tinvolves\ta\tlot\tmore\tthan\tclosing\tthe\tpay\tgap. I\u2019d\t love\t to\t be\t able\t to\t cover\t all\t this\t in\t the\t few\t pages\t available.\t Instead,\t I\u2019ll\t try something\t more\t realistic.\t A\t frequent\t claim\t among\t feminist\t philosophers\t is\t that mainstr eam\t (o r,\t as\t they\t so metimes\t say,\t \u2018malestr eam\u2019)\t po litical\t philo so phy\t do esn\u2019t have\t the\t intellectual\t resources\t to\t accommodate\t or\t acknowledge\t their\t concerns.","Sometimes\t this\t comes\t as\t a\t critique\t of\t liberal\t political\t philosophy\t in\t general:\t the capacities\tthat\tliberals\tcare\tso\tmuch\tabout\t\u2013\tautonomy,\trationality\t\u2013\tare\tdistinctively male;\twhat\tabout\tcaring\tand\tcompassion?\t(I\u2019ll\tsay\ta\tlittle\tabout\tthe\tcommunitarian aspect\tof\tthat\tcritique\tin\tPart\t4.)\tBut\tsometimes\tthe\tfocus\tis\tmore\tspecifically\ton\tthe \u2018distr ibutive\t par adig m\u2019.\t The\t char g e\t her e\t is\t that\t we\t miss\t impo r tant\t featur es\t o f\t o ur society\tthat\tare\tbad\tfor\twomen\tif\twe\tframe\tthe\tissue\tin\tdistributive\tterms.\tI\twant\tto show\t how\t a\t suitably\t sophisticated\t understanding\t of\t equality\t of\t opportunity\t can address\t or\t incorporate\t at\t least\t some\t of\t the\t things\t that\t feminists\t are,\t rightly, concerned\tabout. Consider\t the\t distribution\t of\t opportunities\t for\t income.\t The\t data\t show\t that,\t on average,\twomen\tearn\tconsiderably\tless\tthan\tmen.\tThis\tis\tworse\tthan\tit\tseems,\tas\tit leads\t to\t women\t becoming\t economically\t dependent\t on\t men,\t which\t in\t turn\t affects power\t relations\t within\t the\t family\t by\t increasing\t the\t cost\t of\t separation\t for\t women and\t making\t it\t more\t likely\t they\t will\t stay\t in\t an\t unhappy\t (or,\t worse,\t abusive) relationship.\tMen\twho\thave\tbecome\tthe\tprimary\tbreadwinners,\tand\twho\tcan\texit\tat less\t financial\t cost\t to\t themselves,\t have\t more\t control\t over\t the\t terms\t of\t the relationship.\t To\t what\t extent\t can\t we\t think\t of\t this\t as\t evidence\t of\t any\t inequality\t of opportunity?\t When\t we\t are\t thinking\t about\t the\t contrast\t between\t rich\t children\t and po o r \t childr en,\t it\u2019s\t natur al\t to \t assume\t that\t they\t tend\t to \t end\t up\t with\t better \t and\t wo r se jobs\tand\tpay\tbecause\tthey\tstart\tin\tdifferent\tplaces\t\u2013\tthey\tare\tborn\tinto\tfamilies\tthat yield\tunequal\topportunities\tto\tdevelop\tthe\tattributes\trewarded\tby\tthe\tlabour\tmarket. But\t boys\t and\t girls\t do\t not\t start\t in\t different\t places:\t girls\t are\t no\t more\t likely\t to\t be born\t poor\t than\t are\t boys.\t Could\t it\t be,\t then,\t that\t the\t pay\t gap,\t and\t often-ensuing dependence\t relationships,\t have\t nothing\t to\t do\t with\t unequal\t opportunity\t and\t result rather\t from\t the\t different\t choices\t made\t by\t men\t and\t women?\t Maybe\t women\t are more\t likely\t to\t choose\t part-time\t work,\t or\t lower-paid\t full-time\t jobs,\t because\t they are\t more\t compatible\t with\t other\t things\t they\t want\t from\t life\t \u2013\t like\t looking\t after children.\tIf\tthat\u2019s\twhat\tis\tgoing\ton,\tthen,\tas\tnoted\tat\tthe\tend\tof\tthe\tprevious\tsection, what\tlooks\tlike\tan\tinequality\tof\toutcome\tmight\tnot\tbe\tone\tafter\tall. In\t fact,\t it\t is\t well\t established\t that\t some\t of\t the\t pay\t gap\t persists\t even\t when\t we co mpar e\t men\t and\t wo men\t do ing \t equivalent\t jo bs\t (hence\t the\t demand\t fo r \t \u2018equal\t pay for\tequal\twork\u2019).\tThere\tis\tevidence\talso\tthat\tsome\temployers\tare\tless\tlikely\tto\toffer jobs\tto\twomen\tthan\tto\tsimilarly\tqualified\tmen.\tSo\tit\tcan\u2019t\tall\tbe\tput\tdown\tto\twomen making\tdifferent\tchoices.\tBut\twe\tshould\tquestion\tthe\tsuggestion\tthat\tboys\tand\tgirls star t\t o ut\t in\t the\t same\t place\t in\t a\t mo r e\t fundamental\t way.\t Much\t o f\t the\t inequality\t may indeed\tbe\tdue\tto\twomen\tand\tmen\tmaking\tdifferent\tchoices\tabout\twhat\tkinds\tof\tjob to\tdo\tand\thow\tmuch\tto\twork\tat\tdifferent\tstages\tin\ttheir\tlives.\tBut\tthe\tchoices\tpeople make\t reflect\t both\t their\t preferences\t (what\t they\t want)\t and\t the\t options\t available\t to them\t (what\t they\t can\t have).\t It\u2019s\t the\t interaction\t between\t the\t two\t that\t generates\t the choices\twe\tobserve.\tDifferent\tkinds\tof\tfeminist\temphasize\tdifferent\telements\tin\tthat","combination,\t but\t both\t can\t be\t regarded\t as\t ways\t in\t which\t women\t and\t men\t are differently,\tand\tunequally,\t\u2018placed\u2019\tfrom\tthe\tstart. One\tway\tto\tsee\tthis\tis\tto\tnotice\tthe\tway\tin\twhich\twell-paid\tfull-time\tjobs\trequire wo r ker s\t who \t do \t no t\t have\t to \t spend\t much\t o f\t their \t time\t lo o king \t after \t childr en.\t The wo r ld\t o f\t wo r k\t is\t still\t a\t man\u2019s\t wo r ld\t in\t the\t sense\t that\t such\t jo bs\t tend\t to \t take\t it\t fo r granted\tthat\tsomebody\telse\tis\tdoing\twhatever\tchildcare\tneeds\tdoing\t(and,\tperhaps, car e\t o f\t ag eing \t par ents).\t If\t we\t assume\t that\t wo men\t ar e\t mo r e\t likely\t to \t be\t do ing \t that caring\twork,\tand\tthat\u2019s\twhy\tthey\tdon\u2019t\tchoose\tto\tgo\tfor\tthose\tkinds\tof\tjob,\tthen\twe can\t see\t that\t men\t and\t women\t may\t both\t be\t choosing,\t but\t they\t are\t choosing\t from unequal\t opportunity\t sets.\t Men\t have\t the\t option\t of\t a\t full-time\t well-paid\t job\t and having\ttheir\tchildren\tcared\tfor;\twomen\thave\tto\tchoose\tbetween\tthe\ttwo,\toften\tgoing for\t the\t compromise\t of\t poorly\t paid\t and\/or\t part-time\t work\t that\t is\t compatible\t with their\t caring\t responsibilities.\t Women\t are\t making\t their\t choices\t from\t a\t menu\t of options\tthat\thas\tbeen\tstructured\tby\tmen\tfor\tmen. This\tmay\tseem\ttoo\tquick.\tSuppose\twomen\tare\tindeed\tmore\tlikely\tto\tbe\tdoing\tthe \u2018carework\u2019,\t and\t this\t explains\t why\t they\t are\t less\t likely\t to\t be\t in\t full-time\t well-paid jobs.\tIsn\u2019t\tthat\titself\ta\tchoice?\tAfter\tall,\tnobody\tforces\twomen\tto\thave\tchildren,\tand there\tis\tno\tlaw\tthat\tsays\tit\tmust\tbe\tthe\tmother\twho\tcares\tfor\tthem\tif\tshe\tdoes.\tTo\tsee whether\t women\t are\t really\t on\t the\t wrong\t end\t of\t an\t inequality\t of\t opportunity,\t we can\u2019t\t avoid\t the\t question\t of\t why\t it\t is\t that\t women\t tend\t to\t be\t the\t ones\t who\t do\t the childcare. Ther e\t ar e,\t cr udely,\t two \t per spectives\t o n\t that.\t On\t one\t view,\t wo men\t ar e\t natur ally predisposed\tto\twant\tto\tlook\tafter\ttheir\tchildren\tin\ta\tway\tthat\tmen\tare\tnot.\tJust\tas\tit\u2019s a\t matter\t of\t biology\t that\t women\t become\t pregnant,\t carry\t the\t child\t to\t term\t and\t go thr o ug h\t childbir th,\t so \t is\t it\t that\t wo men\t have\t a\t natur al\t instinct\t to \t car e\t fo r \t the\t child thus\tproduced.\tThis\tis\tsometimes\tcombined\twith\tthe\tview\tthat\twomen\tare\tbetter\tat\tit than\t men,\t so\t there\u2019s\t an\t efficiency\t gain\t if\t women\t do\t it.\t We\t can\t think\t of\t this\t as\t a preference\t if\t we\t want,\t but\t it\u2019s\t not\t a\t preference\t they\u2019ve\t chosen.\t It\u2019s\t one\t they\t have whether\tthey\twant\tit\tor\tnot. On\tthis\tanalysis,\tit\tlooks\tlike\ta\tgood\tquestion\tto\task:\twhy\tshould\twomen\tend\tup worse\t off\t than\t men\t \u2013\t in\t terms\t of\t income\t and\t economic\t dependency\t \u2013\t simply because\t they\t find\t themselves,\t for\t reasons\t beyond\t their\t control,\t wanting\t different things\tfrom\tmen\tand\toperating\tin\ta\tsociety\tthat\tpenalizes\tthem\tfor\tthat\tfact?\t(Notice the\toverlap\there\twith\tthe\tradical\tconception\tof\tequality\tof\topportunity\tset\tout\tin\tthe previous\tsection.)\tThe\tsame\tapplies\tif\twomen\tjust\thappen\tto\tbe\tbetter\tat\tit\tthan\tmen \u2013\t why\t sho uld\t they\t be\t wo r se\t o ff\t because\t o f\t that?\t After \t all,\t it\u2019s\t no t\t as\t if\t men\t do n\u2019t want\t to \t have\t childr en.\t They\u2019r e\t just\t less\t keen\t o n\t (o r \t less\t g o o d\t at)\t actually\t lo o king after\tthem!\tFrom\tthis\tperspective\ta\tsensible\tgender-egalitarian\treform\twould\tbe\tto change\t the\t balance\t of\t economic\t rewards\t attaching\t to\t childcare\t (which\t women naturally\twant\tto\tdo)\tand\twork\toutside\tthe\thome\t(which\tis\tmore\tcongenial\tto\tmen).","Or,\t perhaps,\t to\t reconfigure\t well-paid\t jobs\t so\t that\t they\t can\t be\t done\t by\t those\t who also\thave\tdomestic\tresponsibilities. The\t alternative\t perspective\t holds\t that\t there\u2019s\t no\t deep\t biological\t reason\t why women\t rather\t than\t men\t should\t want\t to\t look\t after\t children,\t or\t be\t better\t at\t it.\t If wo men\t do \t want\t to \t do \t it,\t then\t that\u2019s\t the\t expr essio n\t no t\t o f\t a\t natur al\t instinct\t but\t o f\t a cultur al\t expectatio n\t \u2013\t par t\t o f\t the\t way\t o ur \t so ciety\t defines\t the\t so cial\t r o le\t o f\t mo ther as\topposed\tto\tfather.\tA\tbrother\tand\tsister\tmay\tbe\tborn\tinto\tthe\tsame\tfamily,\tbut\tthat family\t may\t itself\t have\t different\t expectations\t of\t them\t and\t provide\t different\t role models.\tThis\tis\tmost\tblatant\tin\ttraditional\treligious\tfamilies\twhere\tgender\troles\tare very\twell\tdefined\tand\taffect\tthe\tkind\tof\teducation\tmade\tavailable\tto\tchildren.\tIn\tthe extreme\t case,\t in\t cultures\t where\t girls\t are\t denied\t access\t to\t the\t skills\t needed\t to compete\t in\t the\t labour \t mar ket,\t we\t can\t think\t o f\t this\t as\t denying \t them\t even\t minimal equality\tof\topportunity\t\u2013\tthere\tis\tstraightforward\tgender\tdiscrimination\tin\tterms\tof access\tto\teducation.\t(Here\twe\ttouch\ton\tthe\tconflict\tbetween\tequality\tof\topportunity and\tparents\u2019\trights\tover\ttheir\tchildren\u2019s\tupbringing.)\tBut\tgendered\texpectations\tcan be\t less\t sharply\t defined\t than\t that\t and\t still\t be\t very\t real.\t And\t they\t are\t by\t no\t means confined\t to\t the\t family.\t In\t all\t sorts\t of\t ways,\t the\t wider\t society\t \u2013\t peer\t groups,\t TV shows,\t films,\t adverts\t \u2013\t quickly\t lets\t boys\t and\t girls\t know\t that\t they\t are\t not\t starting fr o m\t the\t same\t place\t in\t ter ms\t o f\t ho w\t they\t will\t be\t r eg ar ded,\t and\t tr eated,\t by\t o ther s. (Such\t processes,\t of\t course,\t affect\t far\t more\t than\t attitudes\t to\t motherhood\t and childcare.)\tAs\tfar\tas\tothers\tare\tconcerned,\ttheir\tgender\tis\tpart\tof\twho\tthey\tare,\tand because\t of\t the\t interactive\t or\t \u2018relational\u2019\t way\t in\t which\t people\t come\t to\t understand themselves,\tit\tvery\tquickly\tbecomes\tpart\tof\ttheir\tidentity.\tWho\twe\tare\taffects\twhat we\t want\t \u2013\t think\t about\t little\t boys\u2019\t and\t girls\u2019\t views\t about\t appropriate\t birthday presents\t to\t see\t how\t quickly\t this\t kicks\t in.\t So\t the\t very\t process\t by\t which\t our preferences\tare\tconstructed\tis\theavily\tinfluenced\tby\tgender\tnorms\tand\texpectations. On\tthis\tview,\twhen\twomen\tdisproportionately\tchoose\tto\tlook\tafter\tchildren\tthey are\tmaking\tthose\tchoices\ton\tthe\tbasis\tof\tpreferences\tthat\tare\tnot\t\u2018natural\u2019\tbut\thave been\t formed\t in\t a\t particular,\t gendered,\t context.\t Many\t women\t choose\t jobs\t that\t are compatible\t with\t their\t desire\t to\t fulfil\t what\t gender\t expectations\t have\t encouraged them\t to\t regard\t as\t their\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t men\u2019s\t \u2013\t responsibilities\t to\t others.\t (Men\u2019s pr efer ences\t ar e,\t o f\t co ur se,\t subject\t to \t similar ly\t g ender ed\t influences,\t but\t these\t tend to\t work\t in\t the\t opposite\t direction.\t Men\t are\t pushed\t towards\t better-paid\t full-time wo r k,\t so metimes\t invo lving \t lo ng \t ho ur s,\t which\t ar e\t feasible\t fo r \t tho se\t with\t childr en only\t because\t someone\t else\t is\t willing\t to\t take\t on\t a\t disproportionate\t share\t of domestic\tlabour.)\tThe\tquestion\tthen\tis\twhether\twe\tshould\tregard\tthese\tprocesses\tby which\tpreferences\tare\tformed\tand\tidentities\tconstructed\tas\tundermining\tequality\tof opportunity\t for\t women.\t One\t suggestion\t here\t is\t that\t someone\t who\t has\t to\t buck\t a social\tnorm,\tor\treject\tan\taspect\tof\ttheir\tidentity,\tin\torder\tto\tearn\tthe\tsame\tas\ta\tman actually\t faces\t a\t different\t opportunity\t set\t from\t him.\t A\t man\t can\t comply\t with","gendered\t expectations\t and\t earn\t good\t money;\t a\t woman\t has\t to\t choose\t one\t or\t the other.\tThe\tgender-egalitarian\tmove\there\twould\tbe\tto\tchallenge\tthe\tnorms\tthat\tlead women\tto\tdefine\tthemselves\tas\tcaregivers,\tand\tto\tadjust\tmale\tnorms\tso\tthat\tmen\tare more\tlikely\tto\tsee\tthemselves\tthat\tway.\tOr,\tperhaps,\tto\tmove\tthe\tculture\taway\tfrom the\tidea\tthat\tit\tis\tparents\twho\tshould\tbe\tdoing\tso\tmuch\tlooking\tafter\ttheir\tchildren in\t the\t first\t place,\t promoting\t instead\t the\t merits\t of\t high-quality\t professional childcare.\t As\t you\u2019ve\t probably\t noticed,\t both\t tacks\t are\t currently\t being\t pursued. (Another\tone,\talready\tfamiliar\tin\tmany\tcountries,\tis\tto\tgive\twomen\ta\tlegal\tclaim\tto some\t of\t the\t earnings\t that\t have\t accrued,\t or\t will\t accrue,\t to\t their\t children\u2019s\t fathers. This\tis\tpartly\tintended\tto\tget\tat\tthe\tproblem\tof\teconomic\tdependency\twhich\tmeans that\t women\t don\u2019t\t have\t equal\t opportunity\t to\t exit\t a\t relationship.\t That\t looks\t like\t a sensible\tmove\ton\teither\tanalysis\tof\tthe\tdifferent\tchoices.) That\t was\t indeed\t putting\t it\t very\t crudely.\t Of\t course\t there\t are\t sophisticated accounts\t of\t why\t women\t tend\t to\t choose\t to\t care\t for\t children\t that\t combine\t both perspectives,\t and\t some\t that\t appeal\t to\t other\t considerations.\t And\t I\t certainly\t don\u2019t mean\t to\t suggest\t that\t everything\t feminists\t do\t or\t should\t want\t to\t say\t can\t be\t fully captured\t by\t talking\t about\t distributions.\t I\t haven\u2019t\t mentioned\t a\t whole\t set\t of\t issues around\t pornography\t and\t the\t objectification\t of\t women\t that\t are\t surely\t relevant\t to relational\tegalitarians.\tIt\u2019s\tplausible\tthat\tthe\tprevalence\tof\tpornography\tencourages men\t(and\twomen)\tto\tobjectify\twomen,\tto\tsee\tthem(selves)\tas\tsex\tobjects.\tThis\twill be\tinimical\tto\trelationships\tbased\ton\tmutual\trespect,\tin\twhich\tmen\tand\twomen\ttreat each\t other\t as\t equals.\t One\t doesn\u2019t\t get\t very\t far\t in\t understanding\t that\t problem\t by talking\tabout\tinequality\tin\tthe\tdistribution\tof\topportunities\tto\tavoid\tbeing\tregarded as\ta\tsex\tobject.\tStill,\tI\thope\tI\u2019ve\tat\tleast\tdone\tsomething\tto\tshow\thow\tsomeone\twho cared\tabout\tequality\tof\topportunity\tmight\tapproach\tsome\tkey\tissues\taround\tgender.","Equality\tand\trelativities:\tshould\twe\tmind\tthe\tgap? Equality\t has\t come\t under \t fir e\t fr om\t political\t philosopher s\t because\t it\t is\t necessar ily concerned\t with\t comparisons\t and\t relativities.\t To\t care\t that\t people\t have\t equal amounts\tof\tany\tgood\tis\tto\tcare\tthat\tthey\thave\tamounts\tequal\tto\tthose\tof\tone\tanother. But\twhy\tshould\twe\tcare\tabout\tthat?\tWhy\tdoes\tit\tmatter\tat\tall\thow\tmuch\tpeople\thave relative\tto\tone\tanother? Many\tof\tthose\twho\tthink\tthat\tthey\tbelieve\tin\tequality\t\u2013\tincluding\tthose\twho\tthink that\tthey\tbelieve\tnot\tin\tcomplete\tequality\tbut\tin\tgreater\tequality\t\u2013\tbelieve\tin\tit\tas\ta means,\tnot\tas\tan\tend.\tThey\targue\tfor\ta\tmore\tequal\tdistribution\tof\tresources\tand\tare frustrated\t by\t governments\u2019\t unwillingness\t to\t make\t the\t case\t for\t redistributive taxation.\t But\t when\t you\t ask\t them\t why,\t they\t talk\t about\t the\t importance\t of\t relieving poverty,\tor\tof\tfocusing\tresources\ton\tthose\twho\tneed\tthem\tmost,\tor\tof\tmaking\tsure that\tall\tmembers\tof\ta\tsociety\tare\table\tto\tparticipate\tin\tits\tcommon\tlife.\t(This\tlast\tis the\t \u2018social\t inclusion\u2019\t strand\t in\t centre-left\t thinking.)\t They\t do\t want\t a\t more\t equal distribution\t of\t resources,\t but\t only\t because\t that\t more\t equal\t distribution\t is,\t as\t it happens,\tthe\tway\tto\tachieve\tthese\tother\tgoals.\tTo\tbe\tsure,\tthey\tcouch\ttheir\tthinking abo ut\t these\t o ther \t g o als\t in\t ter ms\t o f\t peo ple\t being \t equal\t in\t so me\t fundamental\t sense. It\u2019s\t because\t all\t are\t morally\t equal\t that\t poverty,\t need\t and\t social\t exclusion\t are\t so unacceptable.\t But\t this\t use\t of\t \u2018equality\u2019\t is\t the\t \u2018everybody\t counts\t equally\u2019\t use mentioned\t earlier.\t What\t it\t really\t means\t is\t that\t all\t citizens\t \u2013\t those\t in\t poverty\t as much\tas\tanybody\telse\t\u2013\tshould\thave\ttheir\tmoral\tclaims\trecognized\tand\tacted\tupon by\tgovernment. To\tsee\tquite\thow\todd\tvaluing\tequality\tis,\tcontrast\tthe\tfollowing\ttwo\tsocieties,\tX and\tY.\tBoth\tare\tmade\tup\tof\ttwo\tclasses,\tA\tand\tB.\tIn\tsociety\tX,\tmembers\tof\tA\tand\tB bo th\t have\t no thing .\t In\t so ciety\t Y,\t member s\t o f\t A\t have\t 99,\t while\t member s\t o f\t B\t have 100: AB X0 0 Y 99 100 Which\t so ciety\t wo uld\t yo u\t \u2013\t o r \t any\t member \t o f\t A\t and\t B\t \u2013\t pr efer \t to \t live\t in?\t Which society\tis\tthe\tmore\tequal? The\texample\tis\ta\tuseful\tstimulus\tto\tour\tanti-equality\tintuitions,\tbut\tits\tmessage\tis weak.\t Equality\t is\t not\t the\t only\t thing\t we\t value.\t We\t also\t value\t people\t having something\trather\tthan\tnothing.\tBig\tdeal.\tThe\tinteresting\tquestion\tis\twhether\tthere\tis any\t reason\t to\t value\t equality\t at\t all.\t Is\t it\t of\t any\t moral\t importance\t whether\t people have\tequal\t\u2013\tor\tnot\ttoo\tunequal\t\u2013\tamounts?\tWhy\tdo\trelativities\tmatter? Our\tintuition\tin\tthe\tprevious\texample\tmay\tbe\tinfluenced\tby\tthe\tthought\tthat\tthose","in\t so ciety\t X\t have\t no thing \t whatso ever.\t They\t ar e,\t we\t mig ht\t imag ine,\t all\t star ving \t to death.\tPerhaps\tit\tis\taffected\tby\tthe\tsize\tof\tthe\tcontrast\tbetween\tsociety\tX\tand\tsociety Y.\t99\tand\t100\tsound\tlike\ta\tlot\tof\tstuff\t\u2013\tcertainly\tby\tcomparison\twith\t0.\tPerhaps\tit\tis influenced\tby\tthe\tfact\tthat\t99\tand\t100\tare\tvery\tclose.\tSociety\tY\thas\tsome\tinequality but\t no t\t much.\t Mo r e\t pur ely\t to \t identify\t what\t we\t think\t abo ut\t equality,\t tr y\t a\t differ ent example: AB X 20 20 Y 20 40 Now\t society\t X\t has\t complete\t equality\t between\t classes\t A\t and\t B,\t but\t everybody\t has 20.\t (Suppo se\t \u2013\t to \t g et\t r id\t o f\t the\t anti-star vatio n\t intuitio n\t \u2013\t that\t 20\t is\t eno ug h\t to \t live o n.)\t So ciety\t Y\t has\t inequality:\t class\t A\t has\t the\t same\t amo unt\t as\t it\t do es\t in\t so ciety\t X. But\tnow\tit\thas\tonly\thalf\tas\tmuch\tas\tclass\tB.\tIn\tabsolute\tterms,\tclass\tA\thas\tthe\tsame level\t of\t advantage\t in\t both\t societies.\t But\t in\t society\t Y\t it\t is\t worse\t off\t than\t \u2013\t is disadvantaged\t relative\t to\t \u2013\t class\t B.\t To\t focus\t on\t the\t issue\t we\u2019re\t supposed\t to\t be thinking \t abo ut,\t do n\u2019t\t wo r r y\t abo ut\t wher e\t the\t stuff\t co mes\t fr o m\t \u2013\t who \t made\t it,\t and whether \t they\t mig ht\t no t\t deser ve\t o r \t be\t entitled\t to \t it.\t Suppo se\t that,\t in\t bo th\t so cieties, the\t amounts\t that\t the\t two\t classes\t have\t are\t completely\t a\t matter\t of\t luck.\t It\u2019s\t not\t that members\tof\tclass\tB\tare\tcleverer\tor\tharder\tworking\tor\tmore\tprudent\t(nor\teven\tthat they\t had\t cleverer\t or\t harder-working\t or\t more\t prudent\t parents)\t than\t members\t of class\t A.\t (In\t Nozick\u2019s\t terms\t \u2013\t discussed\t in\t Part\t 1\u2013\t we\u2019re\t talking\t \u2018manna\t from heaven\u2019.)\tThis\tis\ta\t\u2018brute\u2019\tinequality\t\u2013\tone\tthat\tisn\u2019t\tjustified\ton\tother\tgrounds. Which\tsociety\tdo\tyou\tprefer?\tIf\tyou\tthink\tthat\tsociety\tX\tis\tbetter\tin\tany\trespect, this\t mig ht\t mean\t that\t yo u\t r eally\t do \t believe\t that\t equality\t is\t valuable.\t If\t yo u\t actually pr efer \t X\t to \t Y,\t then\t yo u\t ar e\t willing \t to \t depr ive\t member s\t o f\t class\t B\t in\t so ciety\t Y\t o f their\trelative\tadvantage,\tmaking\tthem\tworse\toff\tthan\tthey\twould\totherwise\tbe,\tand without\t benefiting\t members\t of\t class\t A,\t simply\t to\t prevent\t them\t having\t more\t than members\t of\t class\t A.\t You\t would\t waste\t \u2013\t chuck\t away\u2013\t those\t extra\t resources\t even though\t doing\t so\t would\t make\t some\t worse\t off\t and\t nobody\t better\t off.\t One\t can\t see why\tthose\twho\targue\tfor\tequality\tare\tsometimes\taccused\tof\tengaging\tin\tthe\tpolitics of\tenvy. This\t connection\t between\t equality\t and\t waste\t may\t strike\t a\t chord\t with\t parents\t of two\tor\tmore\tchildren.\tIt\tsometimes\thappened\tthat\tthere\twas\tsome\tindivisible\tgood (sitting\tin\tthe\tfront,\tthe\tlast\tsweet)\tthat\tcould\tgo\tto\tone\tor\tother\tof\tmy\ttwo,\tbut\twith no\tobvious\treason\twhy\tone\trather\tthan\tthe\tother\tshould\thave\tit.\tThey\twould\tprefer that\tneither\tof\tthem\tshould\tget\tit\tthan\tthat\teither\tof\tthem\tshould.\tThey\twould\trather\tI throw\t the\t thing\t away,\t or\t give\t it\t to\t some\t other\t child,\t than\t create\t an\t arbitrary inequality.\tEach\twould\trather\tnot\thave\tit\tthan\tbe\tbetter\toff\tthan\tthe\tother.\tAnticipated envy,\t spite\t and\t ir r atio nal\t g uilt?\t Or \t sibling \t affectio n?\t (My\t kids\t wer e\t no t\t mo ved\t by","my\tattempts\tto\tintroduce\tprocedural\tequality,\tor\tequality\tof\topportunity,\tby\ttossing a\tcoin.\tThey\twould\trather\tthrow\tthe\tthing\taway\tthan\thave\tan\tequal\tchance\tof\tgetting it.\t This\t showed\t that\t they\t were\t silly\t \u2013\t a\t conclusion\t supported\t by\t much\t other evidence.\tFortunately\tfor\tme,\tthey\twere\tless\thostile\tto\tthe\tsuggestion\tthat\tthey\ttake\tit in\t turns,\t which\t proved\t a\t more\t successful\t non-wasteful\t egalitarian\t strategy.) Children\t are\t notoriously\t obsessed\t with\t equality\t and\t fairness,\t and\t Sigmund\t Freud (1856\u2013\t 1939),\t the\t Austrian\t founder\t of\t psychoanalysis,\t offers\t a\t fascinating\u2013\t and somewhat\t disconcerting\t \u2013\t account\t of\t the\t infantile\t roots\t of\t such\t ideals\t in\t his writings\ton\tgroup\tpsychology.\tRoughly:\tour\tsense\tof\tjustice\tdevelops\tas\ta\treaction to\t early\t feelings\t of\t envy\t and\t jealousy.\t Discussion\t of\t his\t approach\t \u2013\t which\t is sometimes\ttaken\tto\timply\tthat\tpeople\tparticularly\tobsessed\twith\tequality\tand\tthe\tlike were\t particularly\t envious\t infants\t \u2013\t would,\t I\u2019m\t relieved\t to\t say,\t take\t us\t too\t far\t off track. I\tsaid\tthat\tthose\tthinking\tsociety\tX\tto\tbe\tin\tany\trespect\tbetter\tthan\tsociety\tY\tmight really\tbelieve\tthat\tequality\tis\tvaluable.\tBut\tit\tmight\tturn\tout\tthat\tthe\treason\twhy\tthey pr efer \t X\t to \t Y\t g o es\t like\t this:\t \u2018It\t all\t depends\t o n\t what\t we\u2019r e\t measur ing .\t Suppo se\t the units\t we\u2019re\t talking\t about\t are\t resources.\t Members\t of\t A\t may\t be\t no\t worse\t off\t in\t Y than\t they\t wo uld\t be\t in\t X\t in\t ter ms\t o f\t r eso ur ces,\t but\t they\t will\t be\t wo r se\t o ff\t in\t o ther ways.\tThe\tvery\tfact\tthat\tmembers\tof\tB\thave\tmore\tresources\tthan\tthey\tdo\tis\tbad\tfor members\tof\tA\t\u2013\teven\tif\tit\tmakes\tno\tdifference\tto\tthe\tamount\tof\tresources\tthey\thave. So,\treporting\thow\tmany\tresources\tthey\thave,\tand\tsaying\tthat\tthey\tare\tno\tworse\toff in\tY\tthan\tin\tX,\tis\tmisleading.\tAll\tthings\tconsidered,\tmembers\tof\tA\tare\tworse\toff\tin Y\tthan\tthey\tare\tin\tX.\tThis\thas\tnothing\tto\tdo\twith\tenvy\tor\tspite,\tor\tcutting\tdown\tthe tall\t poppies\t for\t its\t own\t sake.\t The\t reason\t not\t to\t have\t resource\t inequality\t is\t that\t it makes\tthings\tworse,\tin\tother\tways,\tfor\tthose\ton\tthe\twrong\tend\tof\tit.\u2019 Before\twe\tconsider\twhy\tor\thow\tresource\tinequality\tmight\tbe\tbad\tfor\tthose\ton\tthe wrong\t end\t of\t it,\t notice\t that,\t if\t it\t has\t any\t force,\t this\t thought\t might\t apply\t even\t to choices\t between\t resource\t equality\t and\t alternatives\t where\t the\t worst-off\t class\t is better\t off\t ,\t in\t resource\t terms,\t than\t it\t might\t otherwise\t be.\t Consider\t the\t following scenarios: AB X 20 20 Y 25 40 Now\teverybody\tis\tbetter\toff,\tin\tresource\tterms,\tin\tsociety\tY\tthan\tin\tsociety\tX.\tClass B\t is\t 100\t per \t cent\t better \t o ff;\t class\t A\t is\t 25\t per \t cent\t better \t o ff.\t If\t all\t we\t car ed\t abo ut were\tresources,\twe\twould\tsurely\thave\tto\tprefer\tY\tto\tX.\tBut,\tif\tthere\tis\tanything\tin the\t claim\t abo ut\t inequality\t being \t bad\t fo r \t the\t wo r se\t o ff\t in\t o ther \t ways,\t it\t is\t po ssible that\teven\tin\tthis\tcase\tmembers\tof\tA\tmight\tbe\tbetter\toff\tin\tX\tthan\tin\tY. This\t thought\t is\t particularly\t relevant\t to\t the\t \u2018trickle-down\u2019\t defence\t of\t economic","inequality.\tA\tstandard\targument\tholds\tthat\tinequality\tis\tjustified\tbecause\tit\tpromotes eco no mic\t g r o wth,\t ther eby\t benefiting \t even\t the\t po o r est\t member s\t o f\t society.\t Rather than\tdoing\ttoo\tmuch\tin\tthe\tway\tof\tredistributing\tresources\tto\tthose\twho\thave\tleast, which\tinvolves\ttaxing\tthe\tmost\tproductive\tin\ta\tway\tthat\tmay\timpair\ttheir\tincentive to\tproduce,\twe\tmust\tunderstand\tthat\tthe\treal\tway\tto\thelp\tthe\tworst\toff\tis\tto\tpromote eco no mic\t g r o wth.\t Even\t if\t their \t shar e\t o f\t the\t o ver all\t pie\t r emains\t the\t same,\t per haps even\tif\tit\tgets\tsmaller,\tthe\tpie\twill\tbe\tgrowing\tat\tsuch\ta\trate\tthat\tthe\tabsolute\tsize\tof their\t piece\t will\t be\t growing.\t Witness\t how\t much\t better\t off,\t in\t absolute\t resource ter ms,\t tho se\t o fficially\t in\t \u2018po ver ty\u2019\t ar e\t to day\t than\t their \t co unter par ts\t wer e\t 20\t year s ago.\t Rather\t than\t \u2018minding\t the\t gap\u2019\t between\t rich\t and\t poor,\t which\t is\t itself\t of\t no co nsequence,\t we\t sho uld\t be\t lo o king \t at\t the\t abso lute\t impr o vement\t in\t the\t po sitio n\t o f the\trelatively\tdisadvantaged. Is\tthe\tgap\tof\tno\tconsequence?\tThat\tis\tprecisely\twhat\tthe\tperson\tpreferring\tX\tto\tY denies.\t In\t her \t view,\t the\t g ap\t is\t bad.\t No t\t bad\t in\t itself\t \u2013\t no t\t bad\t fo r \t so me\t intang ible metaphysical\treason\t\u2013\tbut\tbad\tfor\tthe\tpeople\tin\tthe\tsociety\twith\tthe\tgap,\tor\tat\tleast for\t those\t on\t the\t wrong\t side\t of\t it.\t The\t gap\t does\t matter\t because\t people\u2019s\t overall well-being \t is\t affected\t no t\t just\t by\t the\t amo unt\t o f\t eco no mic\t r eso ur ces\t they\t have,\t but also\t by\t the\t amount\t they\t have\t relative\t to\t others.\t We\t may\t be\t concerned\t solely\t to make\t the\t wor st-off\t member s\t of\t society\t as\t well\t off\t as\t they\t can\t be\t \u2013\t and\t not\t at\t all interested\tin\tequalizing\tthe\textent\tto\twhich\tpeople\tare\twell\tor\tbadly\toff.\tBut\tmoney isn\u2019t\t everything.\t Perhaps\t economic\t inequality\t does,\t over\t time,\t improve\t the eco no mic\t situatio n\t o f\t the\t wo r st\t o ff,\t as\t the\t tr ickle-do wn\t defence\t sug g ests.\t But\t that doesn\u2019t\tmean\tthat\teconomic\tinequality\timproves\ttheir\tposition\toverall.\tIt\tmay\tmake it\tworse.\tSuppose\tit\tdoes.\tIn\tthat\tcase,\tif\twe\tare\tinterested\tin\tmaximizing\tthe\toverall well-being\tof\tthe\tleast\tadvantaged,\twe\tshould\tindeed\tworry\tabout\tthe\teconomic\tgap. In\t Rawlsian\t terms,\t there\t may\t be\t maximin-type\t reasons\t to\t care\t about\t economic inequality. Why\t might\t this\t be?\t To\t explain,\t consider\t three\t aspects\t of\t well-being\t for\t which economic\t inequality\t might\t be\t absolutely\t bad:\t self-respect,\t health,\t and\t fraternity. (There\tare\tother\tcandidates,\tbut\tthese\tshould\tdo\tas\tillustrations.) Perhaps\t the\t problem\t is\t this.\t Self-respect\t is\t a\t crucial\t component\t of\t people\u2019s overall\twell-being.\t(Rawls\tsays\tthat\tit\tis\tthe\tmost\timportant\tof\this\tprimary\tgoods.) But\t a\t person\u2019s\t self-respect\t depends\t significantly\t on\t what\t she\t can\t do\t relative\t to others,\t partly\t because\t that\t influences\t how\t she\t is\t regarded\t by\t those\t others.\t For example,\t a\t so ciety\t that\t denies\t citizenship\t r ig hts\t to \t so me\t o f\t its\t member s\t \u2013\t wo men, those\t belonging\t to\t a\t particular\t ethnic\t group\t \u2013\t is\t denying\t them\t the\t possibility\t of taking\t part\t in\t collective\t deliberation\t and,\t in\t so\t doing,\t publicly\t labelling\t them\t as inferior.\t Both\t aspects\t of\t the\t situation\t are\t likely\t to\t lead\t to\t a\t lack\t of\t self-respect,\t a negative\t self-image\t of\t those\t excluded.\t But\t people\u2019s\t capacity\t to\t take\t part\t in\t the common\t life\t of\t their\t community,\t and\t how\t they\t are\t regarded\t by\t others,\t both\t of","which\tfeed\tthrough\tinto\tself-respect,\tdepend\tnot\tonly\ton\tcitizenship\trights\tbut\talso on\ttheir\teconomic\tposition\trelative\tto\tthose\tothers.\tIf\tthe\teconomic\tgap\tis\ttoo\tbig, those\t on\t the\t wrong\t end\t of\t it\t may\t find\t themselves\t excluded\t from\t activities participation\tin\twhich\tis\tcentral\tto\tthe\tway\ta\tsociety\tdefines\tmembership,\tand\tfrom which\t individuals\t der ive\t self-r espect.\t This\t kind\t of\t ar gument\t is\t what\t motivates\t the view\tthat\tpoverty\tshould\tbe\tdefined\tin\trelative\trather\tthan\tabsolute\tterms\t(e.g.,\tless than\thalf\tthe\tmedian\tincome).\tWhat\tmatters\tis\tnot\tjust\tthat\tall\tpeople\thave\tenough\tto eat,\t nor\t is\t well-being\t simply\t a\t function\t of\t absolute\t material\t advantage.\t It\t matters also \t that\t whatever \t peo ple\t have\t is\t eno ug h,\t r elative\t to \t what\t o ther s\t have,\t fo r \t them\t to participate\t in\t the\t shared\t life\t of\t the\t society,\t to\t be\t regarded\t as\t fellow\t members\t by others,\t and\t hence\t to\t be\t self-respecting\t members\t of\t the\t society.\t This\t does\t not,\t of course,\trequire\tcomplete\tequality.\tBut\tit\tmay\tgive\tus\ta\treason\tto\tmind\tthe\tgap. Fo r \t so me,\t this\t talk\t abo ut\t member ship\t and\t self-r espect\t may\t seem\t a\t bit\t nebulo us. Disease\t and\t death\t sound\t rather\t more\t rigorous\t and\t measurable.\t In\t recent\t years, medical\t sociologists\t have\t come\t up\t with\t the\t fascinating\t finding\t that\t economic inequality\t is\t bad\t for\t the\t health\t of\t those\t at\t the\t bottom\t of\t the\t distribution.\t We\t have always\t known,\t of\t course,\t that\t there\t is\t a\t strong\t association\t between\t economic position\t and\t health.\t The\t poorer\t one\t is,\t the\t more\t likely\t one\t is\t to\t get\t ill,\t and\t die young,\tand\tthe\tmore\tlikely\tone\tis\tto\thave\tchildren\twho\tget\till,\tand\tdie\tyoung.\tThis suggests\tthat\tone\tway\tto\timprove\tthe\thealth\tof\tthe\tpoor\twould\tbe\tto\timprove\ttheir economic\tposition.\tBut\tit\tdoes\tnothing\tto\timply\tthat\tinequality\tis\tbad\tfor\tanybody\u2019s health.\t The\t research\t I\t have\t in\t mind\t has\t found,\t much\t more\t interestingly,\t that\t the health\t o f\t tho se\t at\t the\t bo tto m\t o f\t the\t so cial\t hier ar chy\t is\t wo r se\t than\t tho se\t at\t the\t to p just\tbecause\tthey\tare\tworse\toff\tthan\tthose\tothers.\tControlling\tfor\tabsolute\tlevels\tof mater ial\t advantag e\t \u2013\t lo o king \t at\t so cieties\t with\t a\t wide\t r ang e\t o f\t levels\t o f\t eco no mic pr o sper ity\t o ver all\t \u2013\t it\t seems\t that\t tho se\t who \t have\t least\t co mpar ed\t to \t o ther s\t in\t their own\tsociety\tare,\tfor\tthat\tvery\treason,\tlikely\tto\tbe\tmore\tunhealthy.\tIt\tis\tnot\tclear\twhy this\tshould\tbe\tthe\tcase.\tIs\tit\tthat\tthe\texistence\tof\tbetter-off\tothers\tmakes\tpoor\tpeople more\tstressed\tand\tanxious,\twhich\tin\tturn\taffects\tmorbidity\trates?\tIs\tit\tthat\tthose\twho have\t least\t are\t more\t likely\t to\t be\t subject\t to\t the\t authority\t of\t others,\t at\t work\t and\t in relation\tto\tstate\tinstitutions,\tand\tlack\tof\tautonomy\tis\tbad\tfor\tone\u2019s\thealth?\tWhatever the\t precise\t mechanism\t by\t which\t it\t comes\t about,\t one\t can\t see\t how\t belief\t in\t this association\t between\t inequality\t and\t illness\t might\t lead\t someone\t to\t argue\t that\t the economic\tgap\tdoes\tmatter\tafter\tall. Finally,\t and\t returning\t to\t the\t nebulous,\t there\t is\t the\t argument\t from\t fraternity\t or community.\tOn\tthis\tview,\teconomic\tinequality\tis\tbad\tbecause\t\u2013\tor\tto\tthe\textent\tthat \u2013\t it\t under mines\t fr ater nal\t r elatio ns\t between\t member s\t o f\t so ciety.\t Even\t if\t inequality does\t promote\t growth,\t and\t does\t tend\t over\t time\t to\t increase\t everybody\u2019s\t economic position\t(including\tthat\tof\tthe\tleast\tadvantaged),\tit\tmay\talso\tlead\tto\ta\tstratified\tand divided\t so ciety\t who se\t member s\t live\t in\t differ ent\t places,\t pur sue\t differ ent\t lifestyles,","send\ttheir\tchildren\tto\tdifferent\tschools,\tand\tgenerally\thave\tlittle\tor\tno\tcontact\twith one\tanother.\tIn\tsuch\ta\tsociety\tthere\twill\tbe\tno\tfeeling\tof\tsolidarity\tor\tcommunity,\tof people\tbeing\t\u2018members\tone\tof\tanother \u2019.\tPeople\tmay\tbe\tricher\tthan\tthey\twould\tbe\tin a\tmore\tequal\tsociety,\tbut\tthey\twill\tlack\ta\tsense\tof\ttogetherness\tor\tcommunity\tthat\tis also\t crucial\t for\t human\t well-being.\t This\t is\t different\t from\t the\t \u2018self-respect\t via participation\u2019\t line\t of\t argument\t because\t the\t idea\t is\t not\t that\t inequality\t may\t exclude so me\t peo ple\t fr o m\t mainstr eam\t so ciety,\t with\t neg ative\t effects\t o n\t their \t self-imag e.\t It is\t r ather \t that\t a\t fr ag mented\t and\t divided\t so ciety\t depr ives\t all\t who \t live\t in\t it\t \u2013\t r ich\t as well\t as\t po o r \t \u2013\t o f\t the\t g o o d\t o f\t fr ater nity.\t (The\t r ich\t will,\t o f\t co ur se,\t be\t better \t o ff\t in other\tways,\tbut\tas\tfar\tas\t\u2018living\tin\ta\tfraternal\tsociety\u2019\tgoes,\tthey\twill\tbe\tas\tbadly\toff as\tthose\tat\tthe\tbottom.) Because\t it\t invo kes\t a\t mo r e\t questio nable\t co nceptio n\t o f\t well-being ,\t this\t thir d\t line of\t argument\t is\t (even)\t more\t controversial\t than\t the\t other\t two.\t One\t can\t deny\t that economic\t inequality\t affects\t people\u2019s\t self-respect,\t or\t health,\t but\t one\t is\t unlikely\t to deny\t that,\t if\t it\t did,\t that\t would\t be\t a\t bad\t thing.\t The\t value\t of\t \u2018living\t in\t a\t fraternal society\u2019,\t on\t the\t other\t hand,\t is\t much\t more\t disputable.\t It\t might\t make\t sense\t to sacrifice\t some\t of\t the\t poor \u2019s\t absolute\t economic\t advantage\t for\t the\t sake\t of\t self- respect,\t or\t health,\t but\t would\t we\t really\t prefer\t a\t society\t in\t which\t economic inequality\twas\tkept\tin\tcheck\tfor\tthe\tsake\tof\tfraternity\t\u2013\tif\tthe\tresult\twere\ta\tsociety\tin which\t the\t poorest\t were\t poorer\t than\t they\t could\t otherwise\t be?\t (The\t answer\t might depend\ton\tthe\tabsolute\teconomic\tlevel\tof\tthe\tpoorest.\tResearch\tsuggests\tthat\tabove a\tcertain\tthreshold\tmore\tmoney\tdoesn\u2019t\tmake\tpeople\tany\thappier.\tSuppose\twhat\twe really\tcared\tabout\twas\thappiness.\tIn\tthat\tcase,\tallowing\tinequality\tbecause\tit\tmakes the\t poorest\t richer\t makes\t sense\t only\t while\t the\t worst\t off\t are\t below\t that\t threshold. Once\tthey\u2019re\tabove\tit,\tconsiderations\tof\tfraternity\tstart\tto\tlook\tmore\tcompelling.) One\t more\t complication\t with\t this\t invocation\t of\t fraternity.\t We\t are\t considering how\t a\t concern\t to\t maximin,\t to\t maximize\t the\t absolute\t position\t of\t the\t worst\t off overall,\t might\t have\t implications\t for\t the\t economic\t relativities\t (equality)\t that\t we should\t be\t prepared\t to\t tolerate.\t In\t this\t context,\t it\t is\t worth\t pointing\t out\t that\t Rawls regards\tmaximin\tthinking\titself\tas\tan\texpression\tof\tfraternity.\tIn\ta\tsociety\tgoverned by\tthe\tdifference\tprinciple,\tand\tknown\tto\tbe\tgoverned\tby\tit,\tall\tmembers\tof\tsociety understand\t that\t any\t economic\t inequality\t that\t exists\t does\t so\t precisely\t because\t it contributes\t to\t the\t well-being\t of\t the\t least\t advantaged.\t Suppose\t I\t am\t one\t of\t the po o r est\t member s\t o f\t such\t a\t so ciety,\t and\t I\t see\t o ther s\t better \t o ff\t than\t me.\t In\t Rawls\u2019s view,\tit\tmakes\tno\tsense\tfor\tme\tto\twish\tthat\tthey\thad\tless,\tor\teven\tto\twish\tthat\tI\thad some\tof\twhat\tthey\thave.\tThe\tvery\tfact\tthat\tthey\thave\tmore\tthan\tme\tmust\tmean\tthat, over\t time,\t I\t am\t going\t to\t be\t better\t off\t than\t I\t would\t otherwise\t be.\t If\t their\t having more\tthan\tme\tdidn\u2019t\twork\tto\tmy\tadvantage,\tthey\twouldn\u2019t\thave\tit\tin\tthe\tfirst\tplace. So\twhen\ta\tsociety\tendorses\tand\tagrees\tto\tbe\tregulated\tby\tthe\tdifference\tprinciple,\tit is\t institutionalizing\t the\t feeling\t of\t fraternity.\t Nobody\t wants\t to\t be\t better\t off\t than","anybody\t else\t unless\t their\t being\t so\t is\t helpful\t to\t the\t worst\t off.\t I\t will\t return\t to\t the o ddity\t in\t this\t view\t later \t o n.\t Ho w\t co uld\t so mebo dy\t else\t being \t better \t o ff\t than\t me\t be helpful\tto\tme?\tIf\tthey\treally\twant\tto\thelp\tme,\twhy\tdon\u2019t\tthey\tjust\tgive\tme\tsome\tof what\t they\u2019ve\t got\t and\t I\t haven\u2019t?\t For\t now,\t the\t point\t is\t just\t that\t Rawls\t presents\t the difference\t principle\t as\t institutionalizing\t the\t value\t of\t fraternity.\t This\t doesn\u2019t challenge\tthe\tthought\tthat\teconomic\tinequality\tmay\tbe\tinimical\tto\tfraternal\trelations in\ta\tsociety\t\u2013\tbecause\tof\tthe\tstratification\tand\tfragmentation\tI\tmentioned.\tBut\tit\tdoes suggest\t that\t economic\t inequality\t doesn\u2019t\t have\t to\t signal\t a\t lack\t of\t fraternity. Inequalities\tjustified\tby\tthe\tdifference\tprinciple\tmight\tbe\tconsistent\twith\tit.","Positional\tgoods There\t are\t some\t goods\t for\t which\t it\t might\t not\t make\t sense\t to\t think\t in\t difference pr inciple\t ter ms\t at\t all.\t Fo r \t them,\t ther e\t may\t be\t no \t way\t that\t inequality\t co uld\t tend\t to impr o ve\t the\t po sitio n\t o f\t the\t wo r st\t o ff.\t These\t will\t be\t g o o ds\t wher e\t the\t o nly\t way\t to give\tmore\tto\tsome\tis\tto\tgive\tless\tto\tothers.\tIn\tthe\tcase\tof\tmoney,\tit\tis\tof\tcourse\ttrue that,\tat\tany\tparticular\tmoment\tin\ttime,\tthe\tway\tto\toptimize\tthe\tposition\tof\tthe\tpoor would\tbe\tto\tredistribute\twhat\tthe\trich\thave\tup\tto\tthe\tpoint\tof\tequality.\tBut\tthis\twould be\ta\trather\tshort-term\tview.\tA\tbetter\tway\tto\thelp\tthe\tpoor\tin\tthe\tlong\tterm\tcould\tbe to\tpermit\tthose\tinequalities\tthat\tserve\tto\tincrease\tthe\tsize\tof\tthe\tpie.\tThere\tmight\tbe some\tgoods\twhere\tthis\tkind\tof\tthinking\tdoes\tnot\tapply. T hink\t abo ut\t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t in\t r elatio n\t to \t the\t educatio n\t system.\t Suppo se some\t universities\t are\t better\t than\t others,\t and\t consider\t the\t distribution\t of opportunities\tto\tget\ta\tplace\tat\tone\tof\tthe\tbetter\tones.\tCould\tan\tunequal\tdistribution o f\t tho se\t incr ease\t the\t o ppo r tunities\t o f\t tho se\t who \t have\t least\t o ppo r tunity?\t If\t middle- class\t childr en\t have\t a\t better \t chance\t than\t tho se\t fr o m\t wo r king -class\t ho mes,\t then\t the latter\thave\ta\tworse\tchance\tthan\tthe\tformer.\tIt\tis\thard\tto\tsee\thow\tthis\tinequality\tcould impr o ve\t the\t chances\t o f\t the\t wo r king -class\t childr en.\t Because\t ther e\t is\t a\t co mpetitio n for\t places,\t one\t cannot\t give\t more\t to\t some\t without\t giving\t less\t to\t others,\t and\t that inequality\tcannot\tlead\tto\tan\tincrease\tin\tthe\tamount\tavailable\tto\tthose\twho\thave\tless. No\ttrickle-down\t\u2013\tor\tpie-expansion\t\u2013\tstory\tcan\tbe\ttold\tin\tthis\tcase.\tThe\tonly\tway\tto improve\t the\t chances\t of\t working-class\t children\t is\t to\t reduce\t the\t chances\t of\t their middle-class\t counterparts.\t This\t is\t a\t problem\t for\t politicians,\t who\t don\u2019t\t like\t to\t be seen\t to\t be\t making\t things\t worse\t for\t anybody.\t The\t great\t thing\t about\t economic growth\t is\t that\t it\t allows\t politicians\t to\t fudge\t distributive\t issues.\t While\t the\t pie\t is expanding,\teverybody\tcan\tbe\tgetting\tbetter\toff.\tThis\tmay\tapply\tin\tsome\tareas.\tBut\tit does\tnot\tapply\tin\tall. We\t can,\t of\t course,\t expand\t the\t number\t of\t places\t in\t higher\t education.\t The\t US feder al\t g o ver nment\t did\t exactly\t this\t in\t the\t 1950s\t and\t 1960s,\t and\t mo r e\t r ecently\t the UK\t government\t has\t followed\t suit.\t Though\t this\t may\t increase\t the\t chances\t of working-class\t children\t getting\t to\t university,\t it\t won\u2019t\t necessarily\t increase\t their chances\t of\t getting\t to\t university\t relative\t to\t the\t chances\t of\t middle-class\t children. (Remember,\twe\u2019re\tinterested\tin\tequality\tof\topportunity.)\tPerhaps\tthe\texpansion\twill be\t disproportionately\t taken\t up\t by\t middle-class\t children.\t And\t it\t won\u2019t\t necessarily increase\t their\t chances\t of\t going\t to\t one\t of\t the\t better\t universities.\t But\t going\t to\t a better\t university\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t just\t going\t to\t university\t at\t all\t \u2013\t may\t be\t particularly important.\tHere\u2019s\twhy. Education\tis\ta\tfunny\tgood\tbecause\tit\thas\tboth\tintrinsic\tand\tpositional\taspects.\tIn some\tways,\teducation\tis\tvaluable\tintrinsically,\twithout\treference\tto\tthe\tamount\tof\tit that\t others\t have.\t My\t ability\t to\t understand\t Shakespeare,\t or\t to\t solve\t quadratic","equatio ns,\t is\t g o o d\t fo r \t me\t ir r espective\t o f\t ho w\t many\t o ther \t peo ple\t can\t do \t the\t same or\t better.\t But\t in\t other\t ways\t \u2013\t particularly\t when\t it\t comes\t to\t thinking\t about\t the economic\treturn\tto\teducation\tin\tthe\tlabour\tmarket\t\u2013\twhat\tmatters\tabout\teducation\tis one\u2019s\tposition\tin\tthe\tdistribution\tof\teducation,\tthe\tamount\tone\thas\trelative\tto\tothers. Education\t acts\t as\t a\t way\t of\t ranking\t people\t in\t the\t queue\t for\t better-or\t worse- rewarded\tjobs.\tSo\twhat\tcounts\tis\tnot\treally\twhat\tone\thas\tactually\tlearned,\tit\tis\twhere one\tstands\tin\tthe\tdistribution. Considered\tas\tan\tintrinsic\tgood,\tit\tmakes\tsense\tto\tprefer\ta\t25:30\tdistribution\tto\ta 20:20\t one.\t The\t least\t educated\t have\t an\t absolute\t level\t of\t education\t that\t is\t higher \t in the\t fo r mer \t than\t the\t latter,\t they\t have\t mo r e\t o f\t the\t intr insically\t valuable\t g o o d,\t and\t it looks\t perverse\t to\t prefer\t a\t society\t in\t which\t everybody\t has\t less.\t But\t looking\t at\t it from\ta\tpositional\tperspective,\t20:20\tdoes\tnot\tlook\tso\tcrazy.\tPerhaps\tit\tis\tbetter\tfor people\u2019s\tclass\tbackground\tto\tmake\tno\tdifference\tto\ttheir\teducational\tachievements, for\tthere\tto\tbe\twhat\tI\tcalled\t\u2018conventional\u2019\tequality\tof\topportunity,\tthan\tto\thave\tan education\t system\t in\t which\t there\t is\t inequality\t due\t to\t class\t background\t \u2013\t even\t if working-class\tchildren\tdo\tactually\tknow\tmore\tin\tabsolute\tterms.\tTo\tthe\textent\tthat education\tis\tvalued\tpositionally\t\u2013\tso\tthat\twhat\tmatters\tis\tnot\tpeople\u2019s\tabsolute\tlevel but\t how\t much\t they\t have\t relative\t to\t others\t \u2013\t working-class\t children\t might\t rather compete\tfor\tjobs\ton\tequal\tterms\tthan\tknow\ta\tbit\tmore\thistory\tor\tmaths. Apply\tthis\tthought\tto\tthe\tissue\tof\tprivate\teducation.\tWhen\tthose\twho\tcan\tafford\tit send\ttheir\tchildren\tto\telite\tprivate\tschools,\tthey\tmay\tbe\tintending\tonly\tto\tbuy\tthings that\t are\t valuable\t intrinsically\t \u2013\t Latin,\t lacrosse,\t whatever.\t They\t could\t quite reasonably\tsay\tthat\ttheir\tchildren\tlearning\tthose\tthings\tdoes\tnothing\tto\tharm\tthose children\t who\t do\t not\t learn\t them.\t They\t might\t even\t add\t that,\t since\t they\t are\t paying their\ttaxes\ttowards\tstate\teducation\tbut\tnot\ttaking\tup\tplaces,\ttheir\tact\tof\tgoing\tprivate is\t actually\t making \t tho se\t in\t state\t educatio n\t better \t o ff\t than\t they\t wo uld\t o ther wise\t be. All\t this\t might\t be\t true\t if\t we\t think\t about\t education\t solely\t as\t an\t intrinsic\t good.\t But things\t look\t different\t when\t we\t consider\t the\t positional\t side\t to\t the\t story.\t Suppose those\t who\t can\t afford\t it\t going\t private\t does\t indeed\t release\t resources\t to\t the\t state sector,\t ther eby\t making\t state\t educatio n\t better \t than\t it\t would\t o ther wise\t be.\t It\t doesn\u2019t follow\tthat\tchildren\tat\tstate\tschools\tare\tbetter\toff\toverall\tthan\tthey\twould\tbe\tif\telite private\t schools\t didn\u2019t\t exist.\t If\t going\t to\t such\t a\t school\t gives\t children\t a\t better education\t than\t is\t had\t by\t those\t going\t to\t a\t state\t school,\t it\t gives\t them\t positional advantage\t where\t it\t matters,\t in\t the\t competition\t for\t university\t places\t and\t jobs.\t So state-school\t children,\t even\t if\t they\t do\t know\t a\t bit\t more\t than\t they\t otherwise\t would, are\t still\t going\t to\t be\t worse\t off,\t relative\t to\t those\t who\t have\t been\t to\t the\t private schools. This\t is\t why\t some\t people\t find\t private\t education\t more\t troubling\t than\t private healthcare.\t There\t is\t an\t argument\t that\t people\t opting\t out\t of\t the\t British\t public healthcare\t system,\t the\t National\t Health\t Service,\t improves\t \u2013\t or\t at\t least\t doesn\u2019t","worsen\t\u2013\tthe\tquality\tof\tcare\tfor\tthose\twho\tremain\tin\tit\t(by\tshortening\twaiting\tlists, releasing\tresources,\tetc.).\tWhatever\tone\tthinks\tabout\tthat\tas\tan\tempirical\tclaim,\tit\tis at\t least\t true\t in\t principle\t that\t somebody\u2019s\t getting\t better\t healthcare\t than\t me\t doesn\u2019t reduce\tthe\tquality\tof\tthe\thealthcare\tI\tam\tgetting\t\u2013\tand\tcould\teven\timprove\tit.\tUnlike education,\t health-care\t doesn\u2019t\t seem\t to\t have\t a\t positional\t aspect\t to\t it.\t (This\t is different\tfrom\tthe\tissue\tof\twhether\teconomic\tinequality\tis\tbad\tfor\tpeople\u2019s\thealth.) So,\t even\t though\t healthcare\t \u2013\t being\t a\t matter\t of\t disease\t and\t life\t and\t death\t \u2013\t is probably\t more\t important\t than\t is\t education,\t private\t education\t can\t seem\t more objectionable,\tto\tsomeone\twith\tegalitarian\tsympathies,\tthan\tprivate\thealthcare.\tThis is\t because\t so mebo dy\u2019s\t g etting \t a\t better \t educatio n\t than\t me\t auto matically\t makes\t my education\tworse\t\u2013\tin\tpositional\tterms\t\u2013\tthan\tit\twould\totherwise\tbe. Insofar\t as\t goods\t have\t a\t positional\t aspect,\t then,\t the\t only\t way\t to\t make\t sure\t the wo r st\t o ff\t have\t as\t much\t as\t po ssible\t is\t to \t g o \t fo r \t equality.\t We\t may\t be\t mo tivated\t by maximin\t thinking,\t but\t we\t will\t be\t led\t to\t equality\t as\t the\t only\t way\t to\t realize\t it. Trickle-down\tthinking\tdoesn\u2019t\tapply.","Three\tpositions\tthat\tlook\tegalitarian\tbut\taren\u2019t\treally I\u2019ve\talready\tsaid\tquite\ta\tlot\tabout\thow\tprecise\tor\tspecific\tequality\tis.\tHere\tare\tthree positions\t that\t might\t conventionally\t be\t regarded\t as\t \u2018egalitarian\u2019\t but,\t on\t closer inspection,\tturn\tout\tnot\tto\tbe.","1\t\tUtilitarianism\t(or\tany\taggregative\tprinciple) Utilitarianism\tis\tthe\tview\tthat\twhat\tmatters\tmorally\tis\tutility,\tor\thappiness,\tand\tthat the\tright\taction\tin\tany\tsituation\tis\tthat\twhich\tmaximizes\tthe\ttotal\tamount\tof\tit\tthere is.\t (The\t Eng lish\t utilitar ian\t Jer emy\t Bentham\t (1748\u20131832)\t talked\t abo ut\t \u2018the\t g r eatest happiness\t of\t the\t greatest\t number \u2019.)\t The\t idea\t that\t what\t we\t should\t aim\t for\t is\t the maximizatio n\t o f\t o ver all\t utility\t mig ht\t lead\t o ne\t to \t favo ur \t a\t mo r e\t equal\t distr ibutio n of\t resources.\t But\t it\t will\t do\t this\t only\t on\t the\t assumption\t of\t diminishing\t marginal utility\t(i.e.,\tthat\tpeople\tget\tless\tutility\tfrom\teach\textra\tunit\tof\tresource).\tIt\twill\tonly imply\t complete\t equality\t of\t resources\t if\t we\t assume\t equal\t diminishing\t marginal utility.\t An\t obvious\t way\t to\t increase\t the\t amount\t of\t utility\t around\t is\t to\t redistribute resources\tfrom\tthose\twho\tare\tgetting\tless\tutility\tfrom\tthem\tto\tthose\twho\tare\tgoing to\tget\tmore\tutility\tfrom\tthem.\tIf\tit\tis\ttrue\tthat\tthe\tmore\tresources\tyou\thave\tthe\tless utility\tyou\tget\tfrom\thaving\tmore,\tthen\tit\twill\tmake\tsense,\ton\tutilitarian\tgrounds,\tto take\t fr o m\t tho se\t who \t have\t g o t\t a\t lo t\t and\t g ive\t to \t tho se\t who \t have\t g o t\t less.\t This\t is\t a common\tintuition\tunderlying\tthe\tcase\tfor\tredistribution.\tA\tfew\tmillion\tdollars\tmust be\tworth\tless\tto\tBill\tGates\tthan\tthey\twould\tbe\tto\tthe\tthousands\tof\tpeople\tto\twhom they\tmight\tbe\tredistributed. It\tshould\tbe\tclear\tthat,\tin\tthis\tcase,\tany\treduction\tin\tinequality\tis\tan\taccidental\tby- product.\t One\t way\t of\t seeing\t this\t is\t to\t talk,\t rather\t fantastically,\t about\t a\t man philosophers\t call\t the\t \u2018pleasure\t wizard\u2019.\t He\t is\t simply\t superb\t at\t turning\t resources into\t utility,\t and\t goes\t on\t doing\t it\t at\t all\t levels\t of\t resources.\t If\t all\t we\t really\t cared about\twere\ttotal\tutility,\tthen\twe\twould\tforget\tabout\tequality\tand\tshove\tall\tavailable r eso ur ces\t in\t his\t dir ectio n.\t T his\t tho ug ht\t applies\t to \t all\t ag g r eg ative\t g o als.\t To \t aim\t at maximizing\t the\t total\t amount\t of\t anything,\t is,\t by\t definition,\t to\t have\t only\t an incidental\tand\tinstrumental\tinterest\tin\tthe\tdistribution\tof\tthat\tthing\t(here,\tutility),\tor of\t whatever\t it\t is\t that\t produces\t that\t thing\t (here,\t resources).\t You\t will\t go\t with whatever\tdistribution\tachieves\tthe\toverall\tmaximum. This\tis\ta\tpoint\tabout\taggregative\tv.\tdistributive\tconcerns.\tIt\tis\timportant\tto\tkeep\tit distinct\t fr o m\t a\t quite\t separ ate\t issue\t that\t standar dly\t ar ises\t in\t discussio ns\t o f\t equality and\tutility.\tThe\texample\tof\tthe\tpleasure\twizard\tmay\tpersuade\tus\tthat\twe\tshould\tnot be\t interested\t solely\t in\t the\t aggregate\t amount\t of\t utility.\t The\t obvious\t move\t is\t to beco me\t inter ested\t in\t the\t distr ibutio n\t o f\t utility.\t Per haps,\t we\t mig ht\t think,\t we\t sho uld organize\t things\t so\t that\t people\t have\t equal\t amounts\t of\t utility.\t This\t is\t a\t genuinely egalitarian\tposition.\tWhat\twe\tcare\tabout\tequality\tof\tis\tutility.\tThis\tisn\u2019t\tthe\tplace\tto go\tinto\tthe\tproblems\twith\tthis\tview,\tbut\there\tare\ta\tcouple\tof\tclues.\tFirst,\timagine\tthe opposite\tof\tthe\tpleasure\twizard.\tCall\thim\tthe\tmiserable\tbottomless\tpit.\tDo\twe\treally want\tto\tgo\ton\ttaking\tresources\t\u2013\tand\tutility\t\u2013\tfrom\tnormal,\thappy\tpeople\tup\tto\tthe point\t where\t everybody\t else\t is\t as\t fed\t up\t as\t him?\t Second,\t what\t about\t expensive tastes?\t Suppose\t I\t get\t the\t same\t utility\t from\t beer\t and\t crisps\t that\t you\t get\t from","champagne\t and\t caviar.\t Equalizing\t utility\t means\t you\t get\t more\t money\t than\t me, which\tseems\tcounterintuitive.\tOur\tconsidered\tview\tmay\tdepend\ton\twhether\tyou\tare responsible\tfor\tyour\ttastes.\tIf\tnot,\tthen\tit\twould\tbe\tharsh\tto\tcondemn\tyou\tto\ta\tlife\tof unhappiness\t just\t because\t you\t had\t been\t brought\t up\t in\t such\t a\t way\t that\t you\t needed more\t resources\t than\t me\t to\t be\t happy.\t (\u2018It\u2019s\t not\t my\t fault\t that\t Mummy\t and\t Daddy spoiled\tme\tso\tthat\tI\tneed\tchampagne\tand\tcaviar\tto\tbe\thappy.\u2019)\tThe\tview\tthat\twhat\twe should\tcare\tabout\tequalizing\tis\tresources,\trather\tthan\tthe\tutility\tthat\tpeople\tgenerate from\t those\t resources,\t supposes\t that\t people\t are\t responsible\t for\t their\t preferences. (\u2018If\t you\u2019re\t less\t happy\t than\t me\t with\t your\t equal\t amount\t of\t money,\t tough,\t change what\t makes\t you\t happy.\u2019)\t This\t kind\t of\t issue\t has\t generated\t an\t \u2018equality\t of\t what?\u2019 debate\t in\t the\t academic\t liter atur e.\t Suppo se\t we\t car e\t abo ut\t distr ibutive\t equality,\t what is\tit\tthat\twe\tcare\tabout\tthe\tequal\tdistribution\tof?\tI\tdon\u2019t\thave\tthe\tspace\tto\tgo\tinto\tit here,\tbut\tsuggest\tsome\tfurther\treading\tbelow.","2\t\tDiminishing\tprinciples,\tpriority\tto\tthe\tworse\toff\t,\tand\tmaximin We\t often\t think\t that\t those\t who\t have\t less\t of\t something\t have\t a\t stronger\t claim\t to\t it than\tthose\twho\thave\tmore.\tThis\tis\twhat\tmotivates\tthe\tcase\tfor\tchannelling\tresources to\t the\t least\t advantaged.\t But\t it\t has\t nothing\t to\t do\t with\t equality.\t Instead,\t it\t has\t to\t do with\t what\t the\t Israeli-British\t philosopher\t Joseph\t Raz\t (b.\t 1939)\t calls\t diminishing principles.\tThese\tare\tprinciples\twhere\tthe\tstrength\tof\tthe\treason\tto\tgive\tsomeone\ta good\tdepends\ton\tthe\tdegree\tto\twhich\tthey\tpossess\tthe\tproperty\tthat\tqualifies\tthem\tto have\t the\t good,\t and\t the\t more\t they\t have\t already\t got\t diminishes\t the\t reason\t to\t give them\tany\tmore. The\thungrier\ta\tperson\tis,\tthe\tgreater\tthe\treason\tto\tfeed\tthem.\tBut\tonce\tyou\thave fed\tthem\tthey\tbecome\tless\thungry,\tso\tthere\tis\tless\treason\tto\tgive\tthem\tmore\tfood. We\tgive\tbread\tto\tthe\thungrier\tperson\tnot\tbecause\tof\tequality,\tbut\tbecause\ther\tbeing more\thungry\tmeans\tthat\tshe\thas\ta\tstronger\tor\tmore\turgent\tclaim\tto\tthe\tbread.\tThe same\tmight\tgo\tfor\thealthcare\tand\tmoney,\tand\tall\tkinds\tof\tother\tthings.\tDiminishing principles\tmay\twell\tlead\tus\tto\tredistribute\tgoods\tfrom\tthose\twhose\tclaims\tare\tless to\t those\t whose\t claims\t are\t more\t urgent.\t But\t there\t is\t no\t thought\t here\t that\t equality matters.\tRaz\tthinks\tthat\treasons\tto\tdo\twith\tdiminishing\tprinciples,\tnot\treasons\tto\tdo with\tequality,\taccount\tfor\tall\tour\tintuitions\tin\tfavour\tof\tredistribution. I\tcan\u2019t\texplain\tit\tbetter\tthan\tRaz\thimself: What\t makes\t us\t care\t about\t various\t inequalities\t is\t not\t the\t inequality\t but\t the\t concern\t identified\t by\t the underlying\tprinciple.\tIt\tis\tthe\thunger\tof\tthe\thungry,\tthe\tneed\tof\tthe\tneedy,\tthe\tsuffering\tof\tthe\till,\tand\tso\ton. The\tfact\tthat\tthey\tare\tworse\toff\tin\tthe\trelevant\trespect\tthan\ttheir\tneighbour\tis\trelevant\tbut\tit\tis\trelevant\tnot\tas an\t independent\t evil\t of\t inequality.\t Its\t relevance\t is\t in\t showing\t that\t their\t hunger\t is\t greater,\t their\t need\t more pressing,\t their\t suffering\t more\t hurtful ,\t and\t therefore\t our\t concern\t for\t the\t hungry,\t the\t needy,\t the\t suffering\t not our\tconcern\tfor\tequality\tis\twhat\tmakes\tus\tgive\tthem\tpriority. Comparisons\tmatter,\tbut\tonly\tas\ta\tmeans\tof\tidentifying\twho\thas\tthe\tstrongest\tclaim. We\tare\tnot\tcomparing\tpeople\tin\torder\tto\testablish\tequality. So\t far\t so\t good\t (I\t hope).\t But\t properly\t to\t understand\t the\t view\t that\t philosophers call\t\u2018priority\tto\tthe\tworse\toff\u2019\t(or\t\u2018prioritarianism\u2019),\twe\tneed\tone\tmore\tdistinction. Suppose\t it\t is\t indeed\t \u2018the\t hunger\t of\t the\t hungry\u2019,\t rather\t than\t equality,\t that\t explains why\t we\t (sho uld)\t g ive\t them\t pr io r ity.\t The\t o bvio us\t way\t to \t under stand\t this\t is\t simply that\tthe\thungry\twill\tbenefit\tmore\tfrom\tfood\tthan\tthe\twell-fed\twill.\tIt\u2019s\tbetter\tto\tgive the\tfood\tto\tthe\thungry\tbecause\tthat\twill\thave\tgreater\timpact\ton\ttheir\twell-being,\ton how\twell\toff\tthey\tare.\tNow\tthat\tis\ta\tsensible\tthought,\tand\ta\tgood\treason\tto\tgive\tthe hungry\tpriority\twhen\tit\tcomes\tto\tfood.\tBut\tit\u2019s\tnot\twhat\tthe\tprioritarian\thas\tin\tmind. The\tprioritarian\tclaim\tis\tnot\tthat\twe\tshould\tdistribute\tgoods\tin\tways\tthat\tfavour\tthe worse\t off\t because\t they\t will\t benefit\t most.\t (That\t thought\t is\t a\t bit\t like\t the\t utilitarian view\t just\t discussed.)\t The\t claim\t is\t that\t we\t sho uld\t favo ur \t them\t simply\t because\t they ar e\t wo r se\t o ff.\t The\t wo r se\t o ff\t peo ple\t ar e,\t the\t mo r e\t it\t matter s\t that\t their \t po sitio n\t be","impr o ved.\t The\t wo r se\t o ff\t sho uld\t have\t pr io r ity\t even\t if\t they\u2019r e\t no t\t g o ing \t to \t benefit more. One\t last\t po int\t under \t this\t heading .\t Rawls\u2019s\t differ ence\t pr inciple\t is\t o ften\t r eg ar ded as\t the\t flagship\t prioritarian\t view.\t Certainly\t his\t claim\t that\t inequalities\t are\t justified only\tif\tthey\twork\tover\ttime\tto\tbenefit\tthe\tleast\tadvantaged\tis\ta\tvariant\tof,\tand\twas\tin large\t part\t the\t inspiration\t for,\t the\t general\t idea\t that\t the\t worse\t off\t should\t have pr io r ity.\t But\t it\u2019s\t wo r th\t keeping \t in\t mind\t quite\t ho w\t specific\t the\t differ ence\t pr inciple is.\tIt\turges\tus\tto\tmaximize\tthe\tabsolute\tposition\tof\tthe\tworst\toff.\tOne\tcould\tregard the\t claims\t of\t the\t wor st\t off\t as\t par ticular ly\t weig hty\t witho ut\t thinking \t they\t wer e\t that weighty.\tSuppose\twe\thad\tto\tchoose\tbetween\tpolicies\tlikely\tto\tlead\tto\tthe\tfollowing two\tsocieties,\tX\tand\tY: AB X 50 100 Y 51 52 If\tall\twe\tcared\tabout\twas\tmaximizing\tthe\tposition\tof\tclass\tA,\tthen\twe\twould\tprefer Y,\teven\tthough\tthat\tmakes\tit\tonly\tslightly\tbetter\toff\twhile\talso\tmassively\tworsening the\t position\t of\t class\t B.\t This\t raises\t the\t same\t worries\t as\t the\t levelling-down objection.\t So\t it\u2019s\t important\t to\t see\t that\t the\t more\t general\t idea\t of\t \u2018priority\t to\t the worse\toff\u2019\tleaves\topen\tthe\tquestion\tof\thow\tmuch\tpriority\tthey\tshould\thave.\tTaken literally,\t the\t difference\t principle\t gives\t the\t worst\t off\t absolute\t priority,\t which\t even those\tsympathetic\tto\tprioritarian\tthinking\tmay\tfind\timplausible.","3\t\tEntitlement\tand\tsufficiency \u2018All\t o ur \t childr en\t have\t a\t r ig ht\t to \t a\t r o o f\t o ver \t their \t heads,\t thr ee\t meals\t a\t day,\t decent healthcare,\tand\tan\teducation\tthat\twill\tprepare\tthem\tto\tparticipate\tin\tthe\tpolitical\tlife of\t their\t society\t and\t equip\t them\t with\t the\t skills\t they\t need\t to\t compete\t in\t the\t job market.\u2019\tClaims\tlike\tthis\tare\toften\tmade\tin\tthe\tname\tof\tequality,\tand\tsatisfying\tthem may\t require\t a\t much\t more\t equal\t society\t than\t the\t one\t we\t live\t in.\t But,\t as\t I\t hope\t is clear \t by\t no w,\t they\t have\t no \t distinctively\t eg alitar ian\t co ntent.\t T hey\t ar e\t claims\t o f\t the form:\t\u2018All\tXs\tshould\thave\t\u2013\tperhaps\thave\ta\tright\tto\t\u2013\tY.\u2019 We\t can\t connect\t this\t with\t the\t idea\t of\t sufficiency.\t What\t matters,\t it\t might\t be tho ug ht,\t is\t no t\t that\t peo ple\t have\t equal\t amo unts\t o f\t whatever \t is\t valuable,\t but\t that\t all have\t enough.\t As\t long\t as\t everybody\t has\t sufficient,\t the\t distribution\t \u2013\t the\t fact\t that so me\t have\t mo r e\t than\t o ther s\t \u2013\t is\t no t\t impo r tant.\t Ther e\t is\t so me\t thr esho ld\t level\t that everybody\tshould\treach,\tbut\tinequality\tas\tsuch\tis\tneither\there\tnor\tthere.\tThis\tis\tlike the\tdiminishing\tprinciples\tapproach\tinsofar\tas\tit\tmeans\tthat\twe\thave\tmore\treason\tto give\tthings\tto\tthose\twho\thave\tleast.\tBut\tit\toperates\twith\ta\tcut-off\tpoint.\tRather\tthan peo ple\u2019s\t claims\t diminishing \t g r adually,\t as\t a\t mo r e\t o r \t less\t smo o th\t functio n\t o f\t what they\talready\thave,\tthis\tapproach\tposits\ta\tsharp\tcut-off\tpoint\tor\tdiscontinuity,\ta\tlevel of\t adequacy\t which\t it\t is\t impo r tant\t to \t pr o vide\t but\t beyond\t which\t distr ibutions\t don\u2019t matter.\t(We\tcould\timagine\ta\tsophisticated\tmixed\tview\twhich\theld\tthat\tpeople\thave\ta right\tto\tsufficiency,\tso\twe\thave\ta\tduty\tto\tprovide\tone\tanother\twith\tthat,\tbut\tthat\tthere are\tother\tmoral\treasons\tto\tgive\tthem\tmore,\tbeyond\tthat\tthreshold\tlevel,\tin\tline\twith the\tidea\tof\tdiminishing\tprinciples.) Making\tsure\teverybody\thas\tsufficient,\tas\ta\tfundamental\tprinciple,\tmay,\tof\tcourse, have\t implications\t for\t the\t equality\t of\t distributions.\t Perhaps\t giving\t everybody enough\tmeans\ttaking\tfrom\tthose\twho\thave\tmore\tthan\tenough.\tAnd\tit\tis\timportant\tto see\t that\t people\t can\t agree\t in\t endorsing\t a\t sufficiency\t approach\t while\t disagreeing sharply\t over\t what\t counts\t as\t sufficient.\t For\t some,\t it\t might\t be\t \u2018enough\u2019\t that everybody\t has\t shelter\t and\t basic\t subsistence.\t Others\t might\t have\t a\t much\t more demanding\t conception\t of\t sufficiency\t (such\t as\t that\t in\t the\t first\t sentence\t of\t this section).\tClearly,\tthese\twill\thave\tvery\tdifferent\tdistributive\timplications.\tGoing\twith a\tsufficiency\tview\t\u2013\trather\tthan\ta\tgenuinely\tegalitarian\tone\t\u2013\timplies\tnothing\tabout how\t \u2018radical\u2019\t one\t is.\t One\t can\t endorse\t a\t radical\t conception\t of\t sufficiency.\t What matters,\t philosophically\t speaking,\t is\t how\t one\t conceives\t the\t goal.\t Is\t it\t to\t give people\tequal\tamounts\tof\tsomething,\tor\tto\tmake\tsure\teach\tindividual\thas\t(whatever o ne\t co nsider s\t to \t be)\t sufficient?\t Mo r eo ver,\t r ecalling \t my\t discussio n\t o f\t whether \t we need\tto\tmind\tthe\tgap,\tit\tmight\tbe\tthat\tone\u2019s\tconception\tof\twhat\tcounts\tas\tsufficient has\t a\t mor e\t dir ect\t r elation\t to\t issues\t of\t inequality.\t Suppose\t it\t wer e\t tr ue\t that\t people could\tnot\thave\tself-respect\tin\ta\tsociety\twith\teconomic\tinequalities\tof\ta\tcertain\tkind. The\t mere\t claim\t that\t everybody\t must\t have\t self-respect\t \u2013\t building\t self-respect\t into","one\u2019s\tnotion\tof\twhat\tis\t\u2018sufficient\u2019\t\u2013\twould\tbe\tenough\tto\trule\tout\tthose\tinequalities.","Equality\tstrikes\tback Equality\thas\tbeen\tunder\tthe\tcosh,\tin\tthis\tdiscussion\tand\tin\tthe\twork\tof\tthe\tpolitical philosophers\t on\t which\t it\t reports.\t Let\u2019s\t end\t by\t looking\t at\t what\t can\t be\t said\t in\t its favour. First,\t we\t must\t bear\t in\t mind\t that\t a\t looser\t notion\t of\t equality,\t not\t to\t do\t with equality\tas\ta\tdistributive\tideal,\tunderlies\tthese\tother\tnon-egalitarian\tprinciples.\tThe o bvio us\t case\t is\t Rawls\u2019s\t der ivatio n\t o f\t the\t differ ence\t pr inciple.\t If\t we\t ask,\t \u2018Is\t Rawls an\t eg alitar ian?\u2019,\t the\t str ict\t answer \t is\t \u2018No .\t He\t per mits\t inequalities\t if\t they\t benefit\t the worst\t off\t and\t sees\t no\t intrinsic\t value\t in\t equality.\u2019\t But\t recalling,\t from\t Part\t 1,\t how Rawls\t g ener ates\t the\t differ ence\t pr inciple,\t it\t is\t easy\t to \t see\t that\t the\t idea\t o f\t peo ple\t as equal\tto\tone\tanother\tplays\ta\tcentral\trole\tin\tthe\targument.\tThe\toriginal\tposition,\tin which\t people\t behind\t a\t veil\t of\t ignorance\t choose\t principles\t to\t regulate\t the distribution\tof\tbenefits\tand\tburdens\tin\tsociety,\tis\tpresented\tby\thim\tas\tmodelling\tthe sense\t in\t which\t citizens\t ar e\t to \t be\t under sto o d\t as\t fr ee\t and\t equal.\t It\t is\t because\t we\t ar e all\t equal\t as\t citizens\t that\t justice\t r equir es\t us\t to \t think\t in\t ways\t that\t abstr act\t fr o m\t o ur differences\tin\ttalent\tand\tsocial\tcircumstance.\tThinking\tthat\tway,\tsays\tRawls,\twe\twill seek\t to\t maximize\t the\t worst-off\t position\t in\t society,\t choosing\t the\t difference principle\trather\tthan\tstrict\tequality\tto\tgovern\tthe\tdistribution\tof\tincome\tand\twealth. So,\t while\t it\t would\t be\t a\t mistake\t to\t describe\t Rawls\t as\t an\t egalitarian\t in\t the\t strict sense,\tit\twould\tbe\tvery\tmisleading\tto\tsuggest\tthat\the\tis\tnot\tinterested\tin\tequality\tof any\t kind.\t His\t theory\t takes\t people\u2019s\t equality\t as\t citizens\t as\t a\t fundamental\t premise. Something\t analogous\t applies\t in\t the\t case\t of\t all\t the\t other\t principles\t that\t look egalitarian\tbut\taren\u2019t\treally. Second,\teven\tif\tit\tdoes\tmake\tsense\tto\tprefer\tmaximin\tto\tequality,\tor\teven\tif\tour reasons\t for\t giving\t money\t to\t the\t poor\t rather\t than\t the\t rich\t are\t not\t reasons\t of equality,\twe\tdon\u2019t\thave\tto\tabandon\tour\tintuition\tthat\tthere\tis\tsomething\twrong\tabout inequalities\t due\t to\t circumstances\t beyond\t people\u2019s\t control.\t Assume\t that\t we\t have\t a proper\t all-things-considered\t measure\t of\t advantage\t that\t has\t taken\t into\t account reasons\twhy\tthe\tgap\tmight\tmatter.\tIt\tmay,\ton\tbalance,\tbe\tperverse\tto\tprefer\t20:20\tto 25:30,\tif\tthat\tis\tthe\tonly\tchoice\tavailable\tto\tus.\tWho\twould\tbenefit\tfrom\ta\tdecision to\tgo\tfor\t20:20?\tBut\tif\tthe\tinequality\tbetween\tthose\twho\thave\t25\tand\tthose\twho\thave 30\thas\tno\tindependent\tjustification\t\u2013\tit\u2019s\tnot,\tfor\texample,\tthe\tresult\tof\tthose\twith\t30 having\tchosen\tto\twork\tharder,\tbut\tis\tsimply\ta\tmatter\tof\tluck\t\u2013\twe\tmay\twell\tstill\tfeel that\t we\t ar e\t so meho w\t pr efer r ing \t a\t situatio n\t that,\t tho ug h\t better \t o ver all,\t is\t wo r se\t in the\tparticular\trespect\tthat\tit\tis\tunfair.\t(Recall,\tfrom\tmy\tdiscussion\tof\tradical\tequality of\t opportunity,\t that\t if\t the\t 25:30\t gap\t were\t entirely\t due\t to\t people\t having\t made different\t choices\t about\t how\t hard\t to\t work,\t we\t might\t not\t want\t to\t regard\t it\t as\t an inequality\t at\t all.\t You\t cannot\t make\t a\t claim\t about\t the\t justifiability\t of\t inequality simply\tby\tlooking\tat\tthe\tdistribution\tof\tparticular\tgoods\tat\ttime\tt.\tYou\tneed\talso\tto","know\t the\t process\t by\t which\t it\t came\t about.\t This\t is\t the\t way\t in\t which\t equality\t of outcome\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tcan\tcome\tto\tbe\tequivalent.) Finally,\t let\u2019s\t explore\t the\t difference\t principle\t in\t more\t detail.\t Part\t 1\t considered three\t conceptions\t of\t justice:\t Rawls\u2019s\t justice\t as\t fairness,\t Nozick\u2019s\t view\t based\t on self-o wner ship\t and\t entitlement,\t and\t a\t deser t\t view.\t Tho se\t who \t ar e\t keen\t o n\t equality think\tthat\tthey\thave\tgood\tobjections\tboth\tto\tNozickian\tlibertarianism\tand\tto\tthe\tkind of\tconventional\tdesert\tclaim\tthat\tholds\tthat\tpeople\tcan\tdeserve\tunequal\trewards\tfor exercising\t talents\t they\t are\t lucky\t to\t possess.\t But\t the\t difference\t principle,\t being closer\tin\tspirit,\tis\tmore\tof\ta\tchallenge.\tHow\tcould\tit\tmake\tsense\tto\tprefer\tequality to\tmaximin?\tEgalitarians\tcan\tanswer\tby\tturning\tthe\tquestion\tround.\t\u2018OK\u2019,\tthey\tsay. \u2018Let\u2019s\t suppose\t we\t do\t care,\t not\t about\t equality,\t but\t about\t maximizing\t the\t absolute position\tof\tthose\twho\thave\tleast.\tWe\tendorse\tthe\tprinciple\tthat\tjustifies\tinequalities if\t they\t contribute\t to\t that\t goal.\t Now\t tell\t us\t how\t inequalities\t do,\t or\t even\t could, contribute\tto\tit?\u2019 They\tknow,\tof\tcourse,\thow\tsomeone\tinvoking\tthe\tdifference\tprinciple\tto\tdefend inequality\t will\t reply:\t \u2018Need\t for\t incentives\t \u2026\t inequality\t crucial\t for\t economic growth\t\u2026\twe\thave\tto\tproduce\tbefore\twe\tcan\tdistribute\t\u2026\ta\tbigger\tpie\tincreases\tthe size\t of\t everybody\u2019s\t slice\t \u2026\t look\t what\t happened\t under\t state\t socialism.\u2019\t This\t is familiar\tstuff.\tThe\tfundamental\tidea\tis\tthat,\tunless\tsome\tare\tpaid\tmore\tthan\tothers, peo ple\t will\t have\t no \t incentive\t to \t wo r k\t in\t a\t pr o ductive\t r ather \t than\t an\t unpr o ductive activity\t \u2013\t or\t even\t to\t work\t at\t all.\t Differential\t market\t prices\t of\t jobs\t perform\t the crucial\tfunction\tof\tproviding\tthe\tmotivation\tfor\tpeople\tto\tdo\tjobs\tthat\tother\tpeople want\t them\t to\t do.\t If\t everybody\t earned\t the\t same,\t the\t whole\t system\t would\t collapse into\tan\tinefficient\tmess.\tSo\tinequality\thelps\tthe\tworst\toff. No tice,\t incidentally,\t that\t mar ket\t pr ices\t wo uld\t be\t impo r tant\t even\t if\t no bo dy\t wer e mo tivated\t by\t the\t desir e\t fo r \t mo ney.\t If\t the\t mar ket\t is\t wo r king \t pr o per ly,\t tho se\t pr ices agg r eg ate\t people\u2019s\t pr efer ences,\t telling \t us\t what\t it\t is\t that\t peo ple\t \u2013\t taken\t to gether \t \u2013 want.\t This\t is\t what\t economists\t call\t the\t \u2018signalling\u2019\t function\t of\t the\t market.\t Even completely\taltruistic\tsaints,\tconcerned\tsolely\tto\tdo\twhatever\tothers\tmost\twant\tthem to\t do,\t would\t need\t the\t price\t signal\t to\t tell\t them\t what\t that\t was.\t The\t market\t signal allocates\tresources\t\u2013\tincluding\thuman\tresources\t(people\tand\ttheir\tskills)\t\u2013\tto\ttheir most\t productive\t use.\t This\t is,\t in\t principle,\t quite\t separate\t from\t the\t way\t the\t market distributes\t money\t to\t people.\t Joseph\t Carens\t (b.\t 1945)\t has\t devised\t an\t explicitly utopian\t system\t that\t separates\t the\t allocative\t from\t the\t distributive\t functions\t of\t the market:\t there\t is\t a\t price\t signal\t (so\t people\t know\t what\t is\t the\t most\t useful\t thing\t for them\t to\t do),\t but\t everybody\t earns\t the\t same\t (so\t people\t don\u2019t\t keep\t the\t money\t they would\thave\tearned\tin\ta\treal\tmarket).\tThe\tassumption\tis\tthat\tpeople\u2019s\tincentives\tare moral,\tnot\teconomic.\tThey\twant\tto\tdo\twhatever\tothers\twant\tthem\tto\tdo,\tnot\tfor\tthe money,\tbut\tbecause\tthose\tothers\twant\tit. Back\t to\t the\t real\t world,\t peopled\t by\t real\t people\t not\t egalitarian\t saints.\t As\t a","description\tof\tthat\tworld,\tand\ta\tprediction\tabout\twhat\twould\thappen\tif\twe\tgot\trid\tof economic\t inequality,\t the\t familiar\t account\t seems\t fairly\t accurate.\t People\t are motivated\t by\t economic\t incentives,\t and\t without\t some\t inequality\t the\t system\t would collapse.\tBut\tlet\u2019s\tthink\tabout\tit\tnot\tas\ta\tdescription\tof\thow\tpeople\tdo\tbehave,\tor\ta prediction\t about\t how\t they\t would\t behave\t in\t response\t to\t an\t absence\t of\t economic incentives,\t but\t as\t a\t justification\t of\t inequality.\t How\t does\t the\t justification\t work?\t It appeals\t to\t the\t fact\t that\t people\t are\t selfishly\t motivated\t by\t the\t desire\t for\t economic reward.\tMore\tspecifically,\tit\tassumes\tthat\tpeople\tare\tnot\tmotivated\tto\tmaximize\tthe well-being\tof\tthe\tleast\tadvantaged.\tIf\tthey\twere,\tthey\twould\tdo\twhatever\tjob\twas,\tin the\t long\t run,\t most\t beneficial\t to\t the\t least\t advantaged\t without\t worrying\t about\t how much\t they\t would\t get\t paid\t for\t doing\t it.\t Something\t funny\t must\t be\t going\t on somewhere.\t There\t is\t something\t schizophrenic\t about\t an\t individual\t who\t claims simultaneously\t to\t be\t concerned\t about\t maximizing\t the\t advantage\t of\t the\t worst\t off and\t to\t require\t incentive\t payments\t to\t do\t what\t will\t in\t fact\t help\t them.\t \u2018Because\t I r eco g nize,\t with\t Rawls,\t that\t it\t is\t co mpletely\t a\t matter \t o f\t luck\t who \t has\t what\t level\t o f talent,\t I\t don\u2019t\t believe\t that\t I\t deserve\t to\t earn\t lots\t of\t money.\t I\t agree\t with\t him\t that inequalities\t ar e\t justified\t o nly\t if\t they\t help\t the\t wo r st\t o ff.\t But,\t if\t yo u\t want\t me\t to \t use my\ttalents\tand\tbecome\tCEO\tof\ta\tlarge\tcorporation,\tI\u2019m\tafraid\tyou\u2019re\tgoing\tto\thave pay\tme\tlots\tof\tmoney.\tOtherwise,\tI\tsimply\twon\u2019t\tbe\tinduced\tto\tdo\tthe\tjob.\u2019 Those\tdevising\ta\ttax\tpolicy\tmust\tof\tcourse\ttake\tinto\taccount\tthe\tfact\tthat\tpeople are\t indeed\t self-interested\t in\t this\t way.\t If\t we\t endorse\t the\t difference\t principle,\t we should\tset\tup\twhatever\ttax\tregime\twe\tbelieve\twill\tserve,\tover\ttime,\tto\tmaximize\tthe position\tof\tthe\tleast\tadvantaged.\tWe\tmust\ttake\tpeople\u2019s\tmotivations\tas\tthey\tare,\tand do\t what\t we\t can\t to\t harness\t them\t so\t that\t they\t work\t in\t the\t right\t direction.\t This\t is\t a very\t difficult\t job,\t especially\t given\t the\t global\t labour\t market,\t whereby\t some\t can thr eaten\t simply\t to \t g o \t elsewher e\t if\t they\t do n\u2019t\t like\t the\t tax\t r eg ime\t o f\t any\t par ticular country.\t We\t should\t doubtless\t end\t up\t allowing\t people\u2019s\t incomes\t to\t vary\t widely, rather\t than\t imposing\t a\t tax\t regime\t which\t ensures\t that\t everybody\t ends\t up\t with\t the same.\t Perhaps\t the\t inequalities\t that\t characterize\t the\t UK\t or\t the\t USA\t today\t are justified\t given\t people\u2019s\t selfish\t motivations.\t But\t the\t question\t at\t issue\t is\t whether tho se\t mo tivatio ns\t ar e\t themselves\t justified.\t If\t no t,\t the\t incentives\t ar g ument\t do es\t no t provide\t a\t genuinely\t thoroughgoing\t defence\t of\t inequality.\t It\t shows,\t at\t best,\t that inequality\t is\t a\t necessar y\t evil.\t I\t may\t be\t justified\t in\t g iving \t mo ney\t to \t so meo ne\t who has\t taken\t my\t child\t hostage.\t But\t it\t doesn\u2019t\t follow\t that\t the\t distribution\t of\t rewards after\tthat\ttransfer\tis\ta\tjustified\tdistribution. We\t are\t very\t specifically\t considering\t the\t difference\t principle\t justification\t of inequality.\tIt\tis\tnot,\tin\tthis\tcontext,\ta\tlegitimate\tmove\tto\tappeal\tto\tself-ownership\tor the\tkind\tof\tdesert\tclaim\tsupported\tby\tpublic\topinion.\tMany\tof\tthose\twho\tcommand above-average\t salaries\t believe\t that\t they\t are\t justified\t on\t one\t or\t both\t of\t those grounds.\t In\t that\t case,\t the\t egalitarian\t response\t will\t be\t different\t (roughly:\t \u2018No,","people\tdon\u2019t\town\tthemselves\tin\tthe\tsense\trequired\tto\tjustify\tthat\tkind\tof\teconomic inequality.\t No ,\t luck\t plays\t to o \t g r eat\t a\t r o le\t fo r \t us\t to \t think\t that\t peo ple\t deser ve\t what they\t get\t in\t the\t market.\u2019)\t But\t we\t are\t talking\t about\t people\t who\t justify\t inequality pr ecisely\t o n\t the\t g r o und\t that\t it\t helps\t the\t wo r st\t o ff,\t no t\t fo r \t either \t o f\t tho se\t r easo ns. The\talleged\tincoherence\tcomes\tin\tasserting\tboth\tthat\tone\tendorses\tthat\tjustification and\tthat\tone\tis\toneself\tjustified\tin\treceiving\tincentive\tpayments. From\t an\t egalitarian\t perspective,\t those\t who\t demand\t incentive\t payments\t are exploiting\t\u2013\tblackmailing\t\u2013\tthe\trest\tof\tus.\t\u2018We\tare\ttalented\tpeople.\tThe\tmarket\ttells us\tthat\tthe\tthings\twe\tcan\tmake\tor\tdo\tare\tvery\tvaluable\tto\tthe\trest\tof\tyou.\tYou\twant us\t to\t use\t our\t talents?\t OK,\t we\t will,\t but\t only\t if\t you\t pay\t us\t more\t than\t what\t other people\tare\tgetting.\tOtherwise,\tno\tdeal.\u2019\tBecause\tthey\thave\tnot\tthemselves\tendorsed the\t difference\t principle,\t there\t is\t no\t incoherence\t here.\t Just\t extortion.\t Add\t in endorsement\t of\t the\t difference\t principle\t \u2013\t \u2018We\t believe\t that\t inequalities\t are\t only justified\tif\tthey\thelp\tthe\tworst\toff\u2019\t\u2013\tand\twe\tget\tincoherent\textortion. Even\t fr o m\t this\t per spective,\t so me\t kinds\t o f\t inequalities\t mig ht\t indeed\t be\t justified by\tsomeone\twho\tsincerely\tendorses\tthe\tdifference\tprinciple.\tSuppose\tbeing\ta\tbrain surgeon,\tor\tCEO\tof\ta\tbig\tcorporation,\tis\tso\tstressful\tthat\tthe\tjob\tcan\tonly\tbe\tdone well\tby\tpeople\twho\thave\ta\tjacuzzi\tand\tlong\tholidays\tand\tthe\todd\tmidweek\tround\tof golf.\tIn\tthat\tcase,\ttheir\tgetting\tthose\tadvantages\tmay\tindeed\thelp\tthe\tworst\toff.\tWere I\t about\t to\t be\t operated\t on\t by\t a\t brain\t surgeon,\t I\t would\t hope\t she\u2019d\t had\t a\t pleasant evening\t and\t slept\t well\t the\t night\t before.\t Some\t kinds\t of\t advantage\t may\t simply\t be functional\trequirements\tfor\tthe\tproper\tperformance\tof\tthe\tjob.\tPerhaps\tthe\tefficient organization\tof\tproduction\tin\ta\tfactory\tor\toffice\trequires\tsome\tpeople\tto\tbe\table\tto tell\t others\t what\t to\t do.\t Perhaps,\t in\t order\t fully\t to\t fulfil\t their\t intellectual\t potential, academics\tneed\tlots\tof\tautonomy,\tvery\tlong\tholidays\tand\tjobs\tfor\tlife\t(worth\ta\ttry). T hese\t ar e\t no t\t pur e\t incentive\t payments.\t T hey\t ar e\t no t\t exter nal\t advantag es\t that\t br ain surgeons\tor\tsupervisors\tor\tacademics\treceive\tin\torder\tto\tinduce\tthem\tto\tdo\tthe\tjob. They\tare,\twe\tare\tsupposing,\tjust\twhat\tpeople\tneed\tin\torder\tto\tdo\tthe\tjob\twell\tin\tthe first\t place.\t There\u2019s\t no\t incoherence\t in\t endorsing\t the\t difference\t principle\t and demanding\tthese.\tIf\ttrue,\tthe\treason\tfor\tthese\tinequalities\tis\tnot\tthat\tthey\tbenefit\tthe person\tdoing\tthe\tjob,\tbut\tthat\tthey\tbenefit\tthe\trest\tof\tus.\tNobody\tis\tholding\tanybody to\transom. Some\t things\t that\t might\t look\t like\t inequalities\t aren\u2019t\t really.\t Where\t work\t is particularly\tarduous,\tor\tstressful\tor\tunpleasant,\thigher\tpay\tis\tbest\tregarded\tsimply as\tthe\tkind\tof\t\u2018compensating\tdifferential\u2019\tthat\tcame\tup,\tin\tPart\t1,\tin\tour\tdiscussion of\t desert.\t People\t who\t do\t unusually\t stressful\t jobs\t may\t commonly,\t and\t rightly,\t be held\tto\t\u2018deserve\u2019\thigher\tpay\tthan\tthose\twho\tdo\tnot,\tbut\tthis\tis\tnot\ta\tgenuine\tdesert claim,\tnor\ta\tjustification\tof\tinequality.\tIt\tis\ta\tcounterbalancing\tequalizer,\tan\tattempt to\tsecure\tequality\tall\tthings\tconsidered.\tSimilarly,\tit\tmay\tbe\tthat\tsome\tjobs\trequire an\t extensive\t period\t of\t training,\t during\t which\t people\t earn\t little\t or\t nothing.\t In\t that","case,\t so me\t level\t o f\t hig her -than-aver ag e\t pay\t mig ht\t be\t tho ug ht\t o f\t as\t co mpensatio n for\tthe\tearnings\tforgone.\tIn\tboth\tcases,\tthere\tis\tan\telement\tof\t\u2018incentive\u2019\tabout\tthe extra\tearning.\tWithout\ta\tbit\tmore\tmoney,\tpeople\tmight\thave\tno\tincentive\tto\tdo\tnasty jobs,\tor\tjobs\twhich\tinvolve\ta\tlot\tof\ttraining.\tBut\tthey\tare\tequalizing\tincentives,\tnot justifications\t of\t inequality.\t Indeed,\t it\t should\t be\t clear\t that\t the\t kinds\t of\t unequal remuneration\t that\t would\t be\t justified\t on\t these\t grounds\t are\t going\t to\t look\t very different\tfrom\tthose\tproduced\tby\tthe\tmarket.\tAt\tthe\tmoment,\tbroadly\tspeaking,\tthe more\t pleasant\t or\t satisfying\t or\t interesting\t one\u2019s\t job,\t the\t more\t one\t earns.\t Since people\ttypically\tenjoy\texercising\ttheir\ttalents,\tthey\thardly\tneed\tto\tbe\tpaid\tmore,\tas a\tcompensating\tdifferential,\tfor\tdoing\tso.\tThis\tkind\tof\targument\twould\tgive\tgreater rewards\tto\tthose\twhose\tlack\tof\ttalent\tcondemns\tthem\tto\twork\twith\tspecial\tburdens\t\u2013 such\tas\tboredom\tor\tunpleasant\tworking\tconditions. Upon\tclose\tinspection,\tthen,\tthe\tmaximin\t(or\tdifference\tprinciple)\tjustification\tof inequality\tlooks\tless\tstraightforward\tthan\tit\tmight\tseem\tat\tfirst\tsight.\tIf\twe\thave\tto choose\tbetween\tequality\tand\tmaximin,\tas\twe\tdo\tin\tthe\treal\tworld,\twe\tmay\tprefer\tthe latter ;\t 25:40\t may\t be\t better \t than\t 20:20.\t But\t why\t do \t we\t have\t to \t cho o se?\t Why\t do \t we need\t inequality\t to\t get\t the\t worst\t off\t up\t from\t 20\t to\t 25?\t Why\t can\u2019t\t we\t divide\t the resources\t in\t our\t preferred\t society\t equally,\t opting\t for\t 32.5:32.5\t rather\t than\t 25:40? The\tanswer\tis,\tmainly,\tthat\tother\tpeople\tdo\tnot\tbelieve\tin\tmaximin.\tThey\tbelieve\tin maximizing\t the\t return\t on\t their\t natural\t assets.\t This\t looks\t inconsistent\t with\t the reasoning\t behind\t maximin\t thinking,\t which\t holds\t that\t such\t assets\t are\t morally arbitrary\tand\tas\tsuch\tcannot\tjustify\tinequalities\tin\trewards. Here\t we\t reach\t two\t closely\t related\t and\t quite\t general\t issues:\t (1)\t the\t relation between\t people\u2019s\t beliefs\t about\t the\t rules\t that\t should\t govern\t the\t structure\t of\t their society\tand\ttheir\tbeliefs\tabout\thow\tthey\tcan\tjustifiably\tact\twithin\tthat\tstructure,\tand (2)\t the\t extent\t to \t which\t it\t is\t leg itimate\t fo r \t peo ple\t to \t pur sue\t their \t par tial\t inter ests\t \u2013 no t\t necessar ily\t their \t o wn\t selfish\t inter ests;\t they\t mig ht\t include\t the\t inter ests\t o f\t their friends,\t families,\t etc.\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t acting\t impartially.\t The\t position\t I\u2019ve\t been outlining\tholds\tthat\tit\tis\tincoherent\tto\tsay:\t\u2018I\tagree\twith\tRawls.\tThe\ttalented\tare\tjust lucky,\t and,\t fo r \t that\t r easo n,\t we\t sho uld\t set\t up\t r ules\t so \t that\t inequalities\t o nly\t exist\t if they\t help\t the\t worst\t off.\t However,\t as\t an\t individual\t operating\t within\t a\t system g o ver ned\t by\t tho se\t r ules,\t I\t am\t justified\t in\t explo iting \t my\t o wn\t g o o d\t luck\t to \t ear n\t as much\t money\t as\t the\t rules\t permit.\u2019\t Others\t disagree.\t For\t them,\t different\t kinds\t of thinking\t are\t appropriate\t in\t different\t contexts.\t As\t a\t citizen,\t thinking\t about\t what justice\t requires\t at\t the\t structural\t level,\t I\t must\t be\t impartial\t and\t not\t seek\t rules\t that work\tto\tmy\tbenefit\tjust\tbecause\tI\thappen\tto\tbe\tlucky.\tBut,\tas\tan\teconomic\tagent,\tit\tis perfectly\tappropriate\tfor\tme\tto\tpursue\tmy\town\tpartial\tinterest\tand\tto\tmaximize\tthe return\t to\t my\t own\t good\t luck.\t Different\t kinds\t of\t thinking\t appropriate\t in\t different contexts?\t Or \t plain\t old\t hypocr isy?\t Other s\t say\t that\t while\t maximizing \t my\t nar r owly selfish\treturn\tto\tmy\town\tgood\tluck\tis\tunjustified,\tthere\tmay\tbe\tgood\tmoral\treasons","\u2013\t say\t my\t lo ving \t desir e\t that\t my\t childr en\t can\t fulfil\t their \t appar ent\t musical\t po tential (for\t which\t they\t need\t instruments\t and\t lessons)\t \u2013\t for\t me\t to\t demand\t some\t above- average\treturn\tto\tmy\twork,\tif\tI\tcan\tget\tit.\tInappropriate\tbias\ttowards\tthe\tinterests\tof my\tchildren?\tOr\tproper\tparental\tconcern?\tSuch\tquestions\tare\tcurrently\tattracting\ta good\tdeal\tof\tattention. One\tthing\tis\tclear,\tand\tit\treflects\ta\tfundamental\tdifference\tof\tperspective\tbetween the\tacademic\tpolitical\tphilosopher\tand\tthe\tpractising\tpolitician.\tPoliticians\ttypically see\t themselves\t as\t in\t the\t business\t of\t devising\t rules\t that\t work\t as\t well\t as\t they\t can, taking\tpeople\t\u2013\thypocritical,\tself-interested,\tpartial,\tand\tall\tthe\trest\tof\tit\t\u2013\tas\tgiven. Furthermore,\t politicians\t also\t have\t to\t get\t elected\t before\t they\t can\t enact\t their preferred\trules,\twhich\tgives\tthem\tfurther\treason\tto\tcompromise\twith\tthe\tvalues\tand attitudes\tof\ttheir\telectorate.\tPhilosophers\thave\ta\tdifferent\tbrief.\tThey\toff\ter\treasons why\t people\t should\t think\t and\t act\t differently,\t better.\t Great\t politicians\t have occasionally\tmanaged\tto\tdo\tsome\tof\tthat\ttoo.","Conclusion On\t the\t one\t hand,\t equality\t is\t an\t uncontroversial\t starting-point\t for\t any\t political philosophy\t \u2013\t or\t political\t party\t \u2013\t worth\t taking\t seriously.\t Whatever\t our\t other differences,\tas\tcitizens\twe\tare\tequal\tto\tone\tanother.\tThe\tstate\tmust\ttreat\tus\tas\tequals \u2013\t taking\t everybody\u2019s\t interests\t equally\t into\t account,\t not\t regarding\t some\t people\t as more\t important\t than\t others.\t This\t is\t the\t \u2018egalitarian\t plateau\u2019\t on\t which\t nearly\t all political\t debate\t is\t now\t conducted.\t On\t the\t other\t hand,\t a\t concern\t with\t equality\t is bizarre,\tperhaps\teven\tperverse.\tWhy\tcare\tthat\tpeople\tbe\tequal\tto\tone\tanother,\trather than\t that\t they\t all\t have\t enough,\t or\t be\t as\t well\t off\t as\t possible?\t One\t source\t of confusion,\tthen,\tis\tthe\tdifference\tbetween\tequality\tas\ta\tdistributive\tidea\t\u2013\tto\tdo\twith how\t well\t or\t badly\t off\t people\t are\t \u2013\t and\t the\t kind\t of\t equality\t that\t asserts\t people\u2019s fundamentally\t equal\t standing\t as\t members\t of\t the\t political\t community.\t But\t this\t is only\tone\tsource.\tNow\tadd\tin\tthe\tpractical\tor\t\u2018real\tworld\u2019\tparts\tof\tthe\tstory,\tsuch\tas the\tplausible\tview\tthat\tinequality\tmay\tbe\tneeded\tto\tachieve\tthe\tdistributive\tgoals\twe have\tgood\treason\tto\tcare\tabout.\tNo\twonder\tpeople\tget\tconfused. \u2018Do\tyou\tbelieve\tin\tequality?\u2019 \u2018Well,\tyes,\tI\tbelieve\tthat\tall\tpeople\tare\tequal\tin\tsome\tfundamental\tmoral\tsense,\tso the\t state\t sho uld\t be\t equally\t inter ested\t in\t the\t well-being \t o f\t all\t its\t citizens.\t But,\t no ,\t I don\u2019t\t think\t it\t makes\t sense\t to\t seek\t an\t equal\t distribution\t of\t well-being\t rather\t than making\t sure\t that\t the\t worst\t off\t have\t as\t much\t as\t possible.\t However,\t I\t am\t fully sensitive\tto\tthe\tways\tin\twhich\tparticular\taspects\tof\ta\tperson\u2019s\twell-being\t\u2013\tsay\ttheir health\t \u2013\t may\t be\t affected\t by\t particular\t kinds\t of\t inequality.\t Moreover,\t for\t some goods\t\u2013\twhere\tthere\tis\ta\tpositional\taspect\t\u2013\tthe\tonly\tway\tto\thelp\tthe\tworst\toff\tcould be\t to\t distr ibute\t the\t good\t equally.\t Of\t cour se,\t inequality\t is\t functionally\t necessar y\t \u2013 especially\t given\t the\t global\t context\t in\t which\t we\t operate.\t But\t we\t shouldn\u2019t\t forget that,\tinsofar\tas\tinequality\tis\tneeded\tto\tpromote\tthe\twell-being\tof\tthe\tworst\toff,\tthis is\t only\t because\t people\t are\t selfish.\t Were\t we\t all\t saints,\t it\t wouldn\u2019t\t be\t necessary.\t A certain\t amount\t of\t self-interested\t or\t partial\t behaviour\t is\t doubtless\t perfectly reasonable,\tbut\tnot\tthe\tamount\tthat\twe\tsee\treflected\tin\tsalary\tdifferentials\ttoday.\u2019 \u2018Answer\tthe\tquestion,\tPrime\tMinister.\tDo\tyou\tbelieve\tin\tequality?\tYes\tor\tno?\u2019 It\t wo uld\t be\t nice\t to \t think\t that\t po liticians\u2019\t r eluctance\t to \t use\t the\t \u2018E\u2019\t wo r d\t r esulted from\t an\t appreciation\t of\t this\t kind\t of\t complexity.\t It\t would\t be\t nice,\t too,\t if\t more po liticians\t r ealized\t that\t ar g uments\t fo r \t r edistr ibutive\t po licies\t need\t have\t no thing \t to do\twith\tenvy\tor\tlevelling\tdown\t\u2013\tindeed\tnothing\tto\tdo\twith\tdistributive\tequality\tat all\t \u2013\t and\t everything\t to\t do\t with\t improving\t the\t lives\t of\t those\t whose\t lives\t most demand\timprovement. Further\treading","The\t single\t most\t useful\t collection\t on\t equality\t is\t Matthew\t Clayton\t and\t Andrew Williams\t(eds.),\tThe\tIdeal\tof\tEquality\t(Macmillan\t2002),\tclosely\tfollowed\tby\tLouis P.\t Pojman\t and\t Robert\t Westmoreland\t (eds.),\t Equality:\t Selected\t Readings\t (Oxford Univer sity\t Pr ess\t 1997).\t T hese\t co ntain\t many\t o f\t the\t best-kno wn\t and\t mo st\t impo r tant papers\tthat\texamine,\tin\tmuch\tgreater\tdepth,\tmany\tof\tthe\tideas\tsurveyed\there. Joseph\t Raz\u2019s\t views\t on\t equality\t are\t in\t The\t Morality\t of\t Freedom\t (Oxford University\tPress\t1986).\tImportant\tcontributions,\tcritical\tof\t\u2018luck\tegalitarianism\u2019\tand arguing\tfor\tthe\timportance\tof\tequality\tas\ta\tcharacteristic\tof\tsocial\trelationships,\tare Elizabeth\t Anderson\u2019s\t \u2018What\t is\t the\t Point\t of\t Equality?\u2019,\t Ethics\t (1999),\t and\t Samuel Scheffler \u2019s\t \u2018What\t is\t Egalitarianism?\u2019,\t Philosophy\t and\t Public\t Affairs\t (2003).\t The Anderson\t piece\t is\t also\t in\t Clayton\t and\t Williams\t (eds.),\t Social\t Justice\t (Blackwell 2004).\t Paula\t Casal\u2019s\t \u2018Why\t Sufficiency\t is\t Not\t Enough\u2019,\t Ethics\t (2006)\t is\t a\t good critique\t of\t sufficientarianism.\t Ronald\t Dworkin\u2019s\t Sovereign\t Virtue\t (Harvard University\tPress\t2000)\tcollects\tin\tone\tvolume\this\tinfluential\tarticles\targuing\tfrom \u2018equal\t concern\t and\t respect\u2019\t to\t \u2018equality\t of\t resources\u2019\t (and\t against\t \u2018equality\t of welfare\u2019). Although\tonly\tthe\tlast\tchapter\tis\tabout\tthe\tquestion\tin\tits\ttitle,\tG.\t A.\t Cohen\u2019s\t If You\u2019re\tan\tEgalitarian,\tHow\tCome\tYou\u2019re\tSo\tRich?\t(Harvard\tUniversity\tPress\t2000) is\t as\t entertaining\t and\t provocative\t as\t that\t title\t suggests.\t The\t argument\t about incentives\tis\tmost\taccessibly\tpursued\tin\this\t\u2018Incentives,\tInequality\tand\tCommunity\u2019, which\tis\tin\tStephen\tDarwall\t(ed.),\tEqual\tFreedom\t(Michigan\tUniversity\tPress\t1995). The\tutopian\tmarket\tcan\tbe\tfound\tin\tJoseph\tCarens\u2019s\tEquality,\tMoral\tIncentives,\tand the\t Market:\t An\t Essay\t in\t Utopian\t Politico-Economic\t Theory\t (Chicago\t University Press\t 1981).\t Thomas\t Nagel\u2019s\t Equality\t and\t Partiality\t (Oxford\t University\t Press 1991)\telegantly\texplores\tthe\tconflict\tbetween\tthose\ttwo\tideas. Debra\t Satz\u2019s\t \u2018Gender \u2019,\t in\t David\t Estlund\t (ed.),\t Oxford\t Handbook\t of\t Political Philosophy\t (Oxford\t University\t Press\t 2012),\t and\t Will\t Kymlicka\u2019s\t chapter\t on \u2018Feminism\u2019\t in\t his\t Contemporary\t Political\t Philosophy:\t An\t Introduction\t (2nd\t edn, Oxford\t University\t Press\t 2002)\t are\t good\t short\t overviews.\t Susan\t Moller\t Okin\u2019s Justice,\t Gender\t and\t the\t Family\t (Basic\t Books\t 1989)\t and\t Clare\t Chambers\u2019s\t Sex, Culture\tand\tJustice:\tThe\tLimits\tof\tChoice\t(Penn\tState\tPress\t2008)\tare\tthe\tplaces\tto go\tnext. At\t the\t less\t philosophical\t end\t of\t the\t scale,\t John\t Baker\t et\t al.\u2019s\t Equality:\t From Theory\t to\t Action\t (2nd\t edn,\t Palgrave\t Macmillan\t 2009),\t Anne\t Phillips\u2019s\t Which Equalities\tMatter?\t (Polity\t 1999).\t and\t Alex\t Callinicos\u2019s\t Equality\t (Polity\t 2000)\t are all\t stimulating\t reads.\t The\t adverse\t effects\t of\t inequality\t on\t health\t are\t most\t easily approached\tthrough\tThe\tSpirit\tLevel:\tWhy\tEquality\tis\tBetter\tfor\tEveryone\t(Penguin 2010)\t by\t Richar d\t Wilkinso n\t and\t Kate\t Pickett.\t Stuar t\t White\u2019s\t Equality\t (Po lity\t 2006) is\tan\texcellent\ttextbook.","Part\t4","Community The\t French\t revolutionaries\t of\t 1789\t were\t inspired\t by\t the\t slogan\t \u2018liberty,\t equality, fraternity\u2019.\t Today,\t \u2018fraternity\u2019\t \u2013\t literally\t \u2018brotherliness\u2019\t \u2013\t is\t quaint\t and\t politically incorrect.\t\u2018Solidarity\u2019\t\u2013\tthe\tgender-neutral\tequivalent\t\u2013\tturns\tthe\tmind\ttowards\ttrade unio ns\t and\t picket\t lines.\t But\t \u2018co mmunity\u2019\t is\t still\t in\t fashio n.\t It\t is\t war m,\t car ing ,\t and no bo dy\t kno ws\t what\t it\t means.\t This\t co mbinatio n\t o f\t qualities\t has\t helped\t it\t to \t spawn its\town\t\u2018ism\u2019:\tcommunitarianism,\twhich\tis\ta\tcomplete\thotchpotch.\t(It\u2019s\tonly\tfair\tto say\tthat\tpolitical\tphilosophers\tlike\tme\tare\tsuspicious\tof\tall\t\u2018isms\u2019.\tThey\tare\tmessy things,\ttending\tto\tcombine\tideas\tthat\tchange\tover\ttime,\tpull\tin\tdifferent\tdirections, and\tcan\teasily\tbe\tmade\tto\tcome\tapart.\tFrom\tour\tpoint\tof\tview,\tit\tis\tan\tunfortunate feature\tof\tthe\tworld\tthat\tactual\tpolitics\tinvolves\tordinary\tpeople,\twho\tthink\tin\tterms o f\t untidy\t and\t shifting \t co nstellatio ns\t o f\t beliefs\t called\t thing s\t like\t \u2018co nser vatism\u2019\t o r \u2018liberalism\u2019.\t How\t much\t easier\t and\t clearer\t everything\t would\t be\t if\t they\t were\t all philosophers,\t affirming\t or\t denying\t discrete\t and\t precise\t propositions.\t Still, \u2018communitarianism\u2019\t really\t is\t unusually\t ill-defined,\t even\t by\t the\t standards\t of\t other \u2018isms\u2019.) Recent\t talk\t about\t \u2018community\u2019\t has\t been\t of\t two\t distinct\t kinds.\t On\t the\t one\t hand, there\t has\t been\t an\t academic\t debate,\t in\t which\t the\t positions\t developed\t by\t liberal philosophers,\tsuch\tas\tRawls,\thave\tbeen\taccused\tby\tother\tphilosophers\t\u2013\tespecially Michael\t Sandel\t (American,\t b.\t 1953),\t Charles\t Taylor\t (Canadian,\t b.\t 1931),\t Michael Walzer\t (American,\t b.\t 1935)\t and\t Alasdair\t MacIntyre\t (Scottish,\t b.\t 1929)\t \u2013\t of neglecting\t the\t significance\t of\t community.\t This\t debate\t has\t covered\t a\t range\t of complex\t philosophical\t issues:\t conceptions\t of\t the\t self\t or\t person,\t whether\t the\t state can\tor\tshould\tseek\tto\tbe\tneutral,\twhether\tprinciples\tof\tjustice\tapply\tuniversally\tor are\tculture-specific,\tand\tso\ton.\tMuch\tof\tthis\t\u2018communitarian\tcritique\u2019\tof\tliberalism was\t based\t on\t misrepresentation\t and\t misunderstanding.\t But\t few\t would\t deny\t that\t it also\t contributed\t a\t good\t deal\t to\t our\t understanding\t of\t some\t fundamental\t issues\t in political\ttheory. Alongside\tthis\t\u2018philosophical\u2019\tcommunitarianism,\tthere\thas\tbeen\tsomething\telse: \u2018political\u2019\t communitarianism.\t This\t is\t communitarianism\t as\t a\t political\t movement, the\tkind\t\u2013\tassociated\tprimarily\twith\tthe\tIsraeli-American\tAmitai\tEtzioni\t(b.\t1929)\t\u2013 that\tissues\tmanifestos,\tproposes\tpolicies\tand\ttries\tto\tinfluence\tpoliticians.\tHere\tthe talk\t is\t abo ut\t r espo nsibilities\t balancing \t r ig hts,\t the\t defects\t o f\t a\t litig io us\t cultur e,\t the","importance\tof\tthe\tfamily,\tthe\turgent\tneed\tto\trebuild\tlocal\tcommunities.\tThe\ttarget\tis not\ta\tphilosophically\tmistaken\tconception\tof\tthe\tperson,\tor\tanything\tso\tabstract\tor abstruse.\t It\t is\t a\t culture\t of\t egoism,\t of\t individualism,\t of\t self-gratification.\t This,\t in some\tversions\tof\tthe\targument,\tis\tclaimed\tto\tbe\tleading\tto\tsocial\tdisintegration\tand a\t wo r ld\t in\t which\t ato mized\t individuals,\t ber eft\t o f\t co mmunal\t ties,\t live\t meaning less, alienated\t lives.\t Political\t communitarianism\t has\t had\t some\t success\t \u2013\t if\t that\t is measur ed\t by\t the\t extent\t to \t which\t leading \t po liticians\t appeal\t to \t \u2018co mmunity\u2019\t in\t their speeches\tand\twritings.\tFor\ta\twhile\tit\tlooked\tas\tif\t\u2018community\u2019\twas\tgoing\tto\tbe\tthe Big\t Idea\t which\t the\t centre-left\t had\t been\t looking\t for\t (as\t part\t of,\t or\t alongside,\t the \u2018Third\tWay\u2019\tor\tthe\t\u2018stakeholder\tsociety\u2019),\tbut\tit\tis\talso\tinvoked\tby\t\u2018compassionate conservatives\u2019\ton\ttheir\tright. The\t relation\t between\t these\t two\t \u2018communitarianisms\u2019\t \u2013\t philosophical\t and po litical\t \u2013\t is\t co mplex.\t It\t is\t not\t an\t accident\t that\t the\t two \t develo ped\t simultaneously; they\toverlap\tin\tsome\tplaces,\tand\tpolitical\tcommunitarians\toften\tinvoke\tthe\tideas\tof their\tphilosophical\tcounterparts.\tNonetheless,\tthe\tdifferences\tare\tmore\tstriking\tthan the\t similarities.\t None\t of\t the\t leading\t philosophical\t communitarians\t has\t subscribed to\tEtzioni\u2019s\t\u2018communitarian\tplatform\u2019,\tand\tsome\thave\tactively\tdistanced\tthemselves from\t it.\t It\t is\t often\t alleged\t \u2013\t and\t sometimes\t accepted\t \u2013\t that\t philosophical communitarianism\t has\t no\t clear\t policy\t implications\t at\t all.\t In\t fact,\t the\t issues\t that exercise\t political\t communitarians\t tend\t either\t to\t be\t philosophically\t rather straightforward\t and\t uncontroversial\t (e.g.,\t that\t rights\t should\t be\t balanced\t by\t duties o r \t r espo nsibilities)\t o r \t to \t have\t little\t o r \t no \t distinctively\t philo so phical\t co mpo nent\t at all\t (e.g.,\t that\t community-based\t initiatives\t are\t the\t best\t way\t to\t combat\t poverty\t and crime).\tSo,\tmuch\tof\tthe\ttime\tthe\ttwo\tare\tsimply\ttalking\tabout\tdifferent\tthings. Confusing.\t To\t make\t matters\t worse,\t philosophical\t and\t political communitarianism\t are\t each\t made\t up\t of\t diverse\t and\t sometimes\t inconsistent\t ideas. Sandel,\t Taylor,\t Walzer\t and\t MacIntyre\t argue\t against\t different\t targets.\t Some\t aim specifically\t at\t Rawls,\t others\t are\t concerned\t with\t contemporary\t moral\t culture\t in general.\t Some\t focus\t on\t liberalism\u2019s\t conception\t of\t the\t self,\t others\t object\t to\t its suppo sed\t neg lect\t o f\t cultur al\t tr aditio ns\t and\t pr actices.\t To \t be\t fair,\t it\t was\t o ther s\t who grouped\t them\t together\t as\t \u2018communitarians\u2019.\t They\t are\t not\t keen\t on\t the\t label\t \u2013 though\tthis\tis\tpartly\tbecause\tthey\tdon\u2019t\twant\tto\tbe\tidentified\twith\tcommunitarianism as\ta\tpolitical\tmovement. Political\tcommunitarianism\tis\titself\tsomething\tof\ta\tmixed\tbag.\tIn\tsome\tversions, the\t community\t that\t matters\t is\t the\t state,\t a\t real\t community\t is\t one\t that\t treats\t its members\t as\t equals,\t and\t equal\t membership\t has\t an\t economic\t dimension. \u2018Community\u2019\t is\t then\t invoked\t to\t defend\t the\t welfare\t state\t and\t the\t redistributive taxation\t it\t implies.\t Others,\t such\t as\t advocates\t of\t the\t \u2018Big\t Society\u2019,\t are\t concerned rather\t with\t self-help\t groups,\t voluntary\t associations\t and\t local\t communities;\t the welfare\tstate\t\u2013\timpersonal,\tbureaucratic,\tfostering\ta\tculture\tof\tdependency\t\u2013\tis\tthe","problem,\t not\t the\t solution.\t Many\t invoke\t \u2018community\u2019\t simply\t to\t express\t the elementary\t thought\t that\t people\t should\t care\t about\t others.\t Some\t hold\t the\t much stronger\tview\tthat\tthe\t\u2018community\u2019\tis\ta\tlegitimate\tsource\tof\tmoral\tauthority\tin\tsuch a\t way\t that\t the\t government\t is\t justified\t in\t promoting\t particular\t ways\t of\t life\t (e.g., family\tvalues,\theterosexuality\trather\tthan\thomosexuality). My\t strategy\t for\t getting\t a\t handle\t on\t this\t mess\t comes\t in\t two\t parts.\t First,\t I\t show that\t those\t who\t couch\t their\t positions\t in\t terms\t of\t something\t they\t call\t \u2018community\u2019 typically\tdo\tso\tby\tcontrasting\tit\twith\t some\t alternative\t \u2013\t sometimes\t called\t \u2018liberal individualism\u2019\t\u2013\twhich\tis\tpresented\tas\tmorally\timpoverished,\tphilosophically\tnaive and\/or\t sociologically\t ill-informed.\t An\t opposition\t or\t confrontation\t is\t thus\t set\t up between\t liber als,\t who \t car e\t abo ut\t individuals,\t and\t co mmunitar ians,\t who \t car e\t abo ut communities.\t But\t this\t appearance\t of\t confrontation\t is\t misleading.\t Those\t who endo r se\t liber alism\t and\t ar e\t inter ested\t in\t the\t well-being \t o f\t individuals\t can\t say\t mo st of\t what\t those\t who\t emphasize\t \u2018community\u2019\t want\t them\t to.\t The\t second\t part\t of\t the strategy\t is\t to\t discuss\t some\t problems\t for\t liberals\t that\t survive\t this\t process\t of clarification.\t Communitarian\t writings\t have\t done\t more\t than\t force\t liberalism\t to make\t explicit\t thing s\t that\t wer e\t pr evio usly\t taken\t fo r \t g r anted.\t T hey\t have\t r aised\t deep and\tcrucial\tissues\tthat\tremain\tcentral\tto\tthe\tphilosophical\tagenda.","Correcting\tmisunderstandings\tand\tmisrepresentations I\u2019ve\t g r umbled\t abo ut\t ho w\t all\t \u2018isms\u2019\t ar e\t messy\t co mbinatio ns\t o f\t differ ent\t ideas\t that change\t over\t time\t and,\t though\t members\t of\t the\t same\t family,\t can\t be\t quite\t widely divergent\t and\t sometimes\t incompatible.\t Liberalism\t is\t no\t exception.\t (For\t my purpose\t \u2013\t explaining\t how\t liberals\t need\t not\t make\t the\t mistakes\t of\t which\t they\t are accused\t \u2013\t this\t is\t an\t advantag e.\t I\t can\t co ncede\t that\t so me\t in\t the\t liber al\t tr aditio n\t may be\tguilty\tas\tcharged,\twhile\tpointing\tto\tothers\twho\tare\tnot.)\tNonetheless,\tit\tis\thelpful to\t identify\t a\t core\t claim\t at\t the\t heart\t of\t liberal\t theory,\t so\t here\t it\t is:\t liberals\t are primarily\t concerned\t with\t the\t freedom\t and\t autonomy\t of\t individuals.\t Recall,\t from Part\t1,\tRawls\tattributing\tto\tpeople\tin\this\toriginal\tposition\ta\t\u2018highest-order\tinterest in\tthe\tcapacity\tto\tframe,\trevise\tand\tpursue\ta\tconception\tof\tthe\tgood\u2019.\tThough\tthey differ\t in\t all\t kinds\t of\t detail,\t what\t liberals\t have\t in\t common\t is\t a\t concern\t to\t protect and\/or\tpromote\tsomething\tlike\tthat\tcapacity. If\tthat\u2019s\twhat\tliberals\tcare\tabout,\tit\u2019s\teasy\tto\tsee\thow\tthey\tmight\tlook\tuninterested in\t \u2013\t or\t even\t antagonistic\t to\t \u2013\t community.\t They\t are\t interested\t in\t individuals,\t not co mmunities.\t They\t think\t that\t peo ple\t sho uld\t be\t fr ee\t to \t cho o se\t fo r \t themselves\t ho w they\t live,\t apparently\t without\t regard\t to\t whether\t the\t choices\t they\t make\t are\t good o nes,\t the\t values\t o f\t their \t co mmunity,\t o r \t ho w\t their \t fr ee\t cho ices\t affect\t o ther s.\t This, surely,\t is\t a\t political\t philosophy\t for\t egoists,\t one\t that\t sees\t people\t as\t out\t for themselves,\t with\t little\t or\t no\t concern\t for\t anybody\t else.\t Those\t in\t the\t original position,\t choosing\t principles\t to\t regulate\t their\t society,\t are\t presented\t as\t \u2018mutually disinterested\u2019,\t concerned\t only\t for\t themselves.\t Here,\t it\t seems,\t is\t liberalism\u2019s vanguard\ttheorist\tacknowledging\tthat\tthe\tliberal\tstate\tis\tone\tto\twhich\tpeople\tagree simply\tbecause\tit\tsuits\tthem\tbest.\tAnd\tthe\tRawlsian\tconstruction\tmakes\texplicit\ttwo mo r e\t co r e\t liber al\t mistakes:\t that\t peo ple\t cho o se\t their \t values,\t and\t that\t they\t do \t so \t in some\tway\tdetached\tfrom\tthe\tcommunities\t\u2013\tthe\tcultures\tand\tsubcultures\t\u2013\tin\twhich they\tare\traised\tand\tlive.\tHow\telse\tare\twe\tto\tunderstand\tthe\toddly\tdisembodied\tand depersonalized\t contractors\t in\t the\t original\t position,\t motivated\t above\t all\t to\t protect their\tfreedom\tto\tchoose\thow\tthey\tlive? Liberalism\u2019s\temphasis\ton\tindividual\tfreedom\tseems\tto\tset\tit\ton\ta\tcollision\tcourse with\tthe\tvalue\tof\tcommunity.\tRawls\u2019s\thugely\tinfluential\tarticulation\tof\tliberal\tideas appears\tto\tconfirm\tthis.\tA\tthird\tfactor\tleading\tin\tthe\tsame\t\u2013\tmistaken\t\u2013\tdirection\tis the\t confusion\t of\t liberalism\t as\t that\t is\t understood\t by\t political\t philosophers\t with something\t that\t became\t known\t as\t \u2018economic\t liberalism\u2019\t or\t \u2018neo-liberalism\u2019.\t This latter\t\u2013\ta\tcore\tcomponent\tof\tthe\t\u2018New\tRight\u2019\t\u2013\tis\ta\tdoctrine\tabout\tthe\timportance\tof keeping\tmarkets\tfree\tfrom\tdistortion,\tregulation\tand\tstate\tinterference.\tIt\tcombines empirical\t claims\t about\t the\t superior\t efficiency\t and\t productivity\t of\t market mechanisms\t with\t moral\t claims\t about\t the\t importance\t of\t private\t property\t and individuals\tbeing\tfree\tto\tengage\tin\teconomic\texchanges.\t(The\tlatter\twere\tdiscussed","in\t Part\t 2.)\t The\t confusion\t of\t economic\t liberalism\t with\t liberalism\t in\t general\t is especially\tcommon\tin\tpost-communist\tstates.\tIt\tis\teasy,\tthere,\tto\tthink\tin\tterms\tof\ta crude\t contrast\t between\t \u2018communism\u2019\t (which\t mistakenly\t believes\t in\t equality)\t and \u2018liberalism\u2019\t (which\t rightly\t believes\t in\t individual\t freedom).\t \u2018Freedom\u2019\t is\t equated with\t \u2018market\t freedom\u2019,\t \u2018liberalism\u2019\t with\t the\t \u2018liberalization\u2019\t of\t the\t market\t \u2013\t i.e.,\t a shift\t fr o m\t state\t co ntr o l\t and\t r eg ulatio n\t to \t \u2018fr ee\t mar kets\u2019.\t T he\t r esult\t is\t that\t liber als, by\tdefinition,\tbelieve\tin\ta\tlaissez-faire\teconomy.\tIt\tis\tthose\tstates\tthat\thave\tmost\tto gain\tfrom\ta\tproper\tunderstanding\tof\twhat\tliberalism\tdoes\tand\tdoes\tnot\tinvolve.\t(In the\t US,\t on\t the\t other\t hand,\t liberalism\t is\t normally\t identified\t with\t support\t for\t the welfare\tstate.\tI\ttold\tyou\tthese\tlabels\twere\tproblematic!) Here,\t in\t roughly\t increasing\t order\t of\t complexity,\t are\t seven\t objections\t to liberalism\tthat\tsometimes\tare\tmade\tin\tthe\tname\tof\tcommunity: 1\t\tLiberals\tassume\tthat\tpeople\tare\tselfish\tor\tegoistic. 2\t\tLiberals\tadvocate\ta\tminimal\tstate. 3\t\tLiberals\temphasize\trights\trather\tthan\tduties\tor\tresponsibilities. 4\t\tLiberals\tbelieve\tthat\tvalues\tare\tsubjective\tor\trelative. 5\t\tLiberals\tneglect\tthe\tway\tin\twhich\tindividuals\tare\tsocially\tconstituted. 6\t\tLiberals\tfail\tto\tsee\tthe\tsignificance\tof\tcommunal\trelations,\tshared\tvalues\tand\ta common\tidentity. 7\t\tLiberals\twrongly\tthink\tthat\tthe\tstate\tcan\tand\tshould\tbe\tneutral. All\t of\t these\t objections\t are\t misplaced\t (though\t some\t are\t more\t misplaced\t than others).\tLet\u2019s\tconsider\tthem\tin\tturn.\tAs\twe\tdo,\ttry\tto\tbear\tin\tmind\tthat\tI\u2019m\tnot\ttrying to\t defend\t liberalism.\t I\u2019m\t just\t trying\t to\t explain\t what\t is\t and\t is\t not\t implied\t by endorsement\tof\tthe\tcore\tliberal\tclaim\tidentified\tabove.","Objection\t1:\tLiberals\tassume\tthat\tpeople\tare\tselfish\tor\tegoistic Politicians\tsometimes\tinvoke\t\u2018community\u2019\twhen\tthey\twant\tto\tsay\tthat\tpeople\tshould care\t about\t one\t another,\t not\t just\t about\t themselves.\t In\t contrast\t to\t the\t crude \u2018individualism\u2019\t o f\t the\t New\t Rig ht\t \u2013\t an\t etho s\t alleg edly\t captur ed\t by\t slo g ans\t such\t as \u2018greed\t is\t good\u2019\t or\t \u2018there\t is\t no\t such\t thing\t as\t society\u2019\t \u2013\t community\t means\t that people\t shouldn\u2019t\t simply\t look\t out\t fo r \t number \t one.\t Rather \t than\t pur suing\t unbr idled self-interest,\t they\t should\t have\t a\t sense\t of\t solidarity\t with\t other\t members\t of\t their community,\tidentifying\twith\tthem\tsufficiently\tto\tbe\twilling\tto\tmake\tsome\tsacrifices for\t their\t sake.\t Here,\t talk\t about\t \u2018community\u2019\t is\t essentially\t code\t for\t talk\t about morality.\t Morality\t requires\t that\t we\t act\t not\t simply\t as\t egoists,\t but\t recognize\t that others\tmay\thave\tclaims\ton\tus. Why\tspeak\tin\tcode?\tBecause,\tfor\tpoliticians,\ttalking\texplicitly\tabout\tmorality\tis dangerous.\t It\t is\t seen\t as\t preaching,\t as\t inappropriately\t high-minded.\t It\t is\t often equated\t with\t the\t pr escr iptio n\t o f\t a\t par ticular \t and\t well-specified\t co nceptio n\t o f\t ho w people\t should\t lead\t their\t lives.\t People\t don\u2019t\t like\t politicians\t telling\t them\t how\t they should\tlive,\tand\tpoliticians\tare\tusually\tkeen\tto\tavoid\teven\tthe\tappearance\tof\tdoing so.\tSince\tpoliticians\tmust\tjustify\ttheir\tpolicies,\tand\tsince\tall\tjustification\tof\tpolicy\tis ultimately\t moral\t justification,\t they\t resort\t to\t code.\t Which\t is\t where\t \u2018community\u2019 comes\tin.\t(All\tjustification\tof\tpolicy\tis\tultimately\tmoral\tbecause\twhenever\ta\tpolicy is\t presented\t merely\t technically,\t as\t simply\t the\t most\t practical\t or\t efficient\t means\t to achieve\t a\t par ticular \t end,\t it\t is\t always\t r elevant\t to \t ask\t whether \t the\t end\t in\t questio n\t is itself\tmorally\tdesirable.) There\tare\ttwo\tmisunderstandings\tin\tall\tthis.\tThe\tfirst\tis\theld\tby\tcommunitarians who\tthink\tone\tneeds\tto\tinvoke\t\u2018community\u2019\tto\ttalk\tabout\tmorality.\tThey\tfail\tto\tsee that,\ton\tany\tplausible\tinterpretation,\tliberalism\tis\titself\ta\tmoral\tdoctrine.\tIt\tdoes\tnot endorse\tthe\tunrestrained\tegoistic\tpursuit\tof\tindividual\tself-interest,\tbut\thas\tplenty\tof room\tfor\tthe\tidea\tthat\tpeople\thave\tmoral\tclaims\tagainst\tone\tanother,\tsome\tof\twhich \u2013\tthose\tthat\tentail\tduties\ton\tthe\tpart\tof\tothers\t\u2013\tthe\tstate\tcan\tenforce.\t\u2018Individualism\u2019 (what\t matters\t is\t the\t well-being\t of\t individuals)\t or\t \u2018liberal\t individualism\u2019\t (the freedom\t and\t autonomy\t of\t individuals\t are\t essential\t to\t their\t well-being)\t are\t not egoism.\tIf\tindividuals\tmatter,\tthen\tall\tindividuals\tmatter\t\u2013\tnot\tjust\tme.\tI\tcan\tpursue my\tself-interest\tonly\tto\tthe\textent\tcompatible\twith\tthe\tmoral\trequirement\tthat\tI\ttreat others\tjustly.\tTo\tendorse\tliberalism\tis\tnot\tto\tendorse\ta\tculture\tin\twhich\tindividuals put\t the\t gratification\t of\t their\t own\t desires\t before\t everything\t else.\t It\t is\t to\t endorse\t a system\t of\t rules\t and\t laws\t that\t constrain\t egoism\t precisely\t to\t ensure\t that\t all\t are treated\twith\tthe\tconcern\tand\trespect\tdue\tto\tthem\tas\tautonomous\tindividuals. The\t second\t misunderstanding\t is\t held\t by\t those\t who\t see\t talk\t of\t morality\t as\t the pr escr iption\t of\t par ticular \t ways\t of\t life\t (heter osexual,\t monog amo us,\t dr ug-fr ee\t \u2026). The\t mo r al\t idea\t at\t the\t hear t\t o f\t liber alism\t is\t pr ecisely\t that\t peo ple\t sho uld\t be\t fr ee\t to","cho o se\t fo r \t themselves\t ho w\t they\t live,\t as\t lo ng \t as\t this\t is\t co nsistent\t with\t the\t co ncer n and\trespect\tfor\tall\tindividuals\tdiscussed\tin\tthe\tprevious\tparagraph.\t(Which\timplies, amongst\t other\t things,\t similar\t freedom\t for\t others.)\t So\t liberalism\t is\t a\t moral doctrine.\tBut\tit\tis\ta\tthin\tmoral\tdoctrine.\tIt\tdoes\tnot\tnecessarily\tspecify\tany\tparticular way\tor\tways\tin\twhich\tpeople\tshould\tlive\t(except\tthat\tthey\tshould\ttreat\tone\tanother justly).\t Communitarians\t are\t wrong\t to\t think\t that\t talking\t about\t morality\t implies abandoning\tliberal\tindividualism.\tPoliticians\tand\tjournalists\tare\twrong\tto\tthink\tthat talking\t about\t morality\t means\t prescribing,\t or\t even\t endorsing,\t particular\t ways\t of life. Invoking\t \u2018community\u2019\t may\t indeed\t be\t an\t effective\t way\t to\t motivate\t concern\t for others,\t to\t couch\t claims\t that\t would\t look\t like\t preaching,\t or\t seem\t inappropriately prescriptive,\t if\t they\t were\t presented\t as\t \u2018morality\u2019.\t Philosophers\t are\t in\t favour\t of anything\tthat\tmakes\tpeople\tmore\tlikely\tto\tact\tmorally.\tBut\tthey\tare\talso\tin\tfavour\tof theoretical\t clarity.\t \u2018Community\u2019\t can\t serve\t as\t a\t rhetorical\t proxy\t for\t \u2018morality\u2019\t as long\t as\t it\t is\t understood\t that\t \u2018community\u2019\t used\t this\t way\t is\t quite\t compatible\t with \u2018liberal\tindividualism\u2019.","Objection\t2:\tLiberals\tadvocate\ta\tminimal\tstate Liberals\t agree\t in\t seeing\t the\t state\u2019s\t job\t as\t that\t of\t protecting\t and\t promoting individual\t fr eedo m.\t But\t differ ent\t str ands\t of\t liber alism\t disag r ee\t abo ut\t what\t counts as\t \u2018protecting\t and\t promoting\t freedom\u2019.\t For\t some,\t a\t liberal\t state\t is\t a\t minimal\t or \u2018nig htwatchman\u2019\t state.\t It\t co nfines\t itself\t to \t the\t tasks\t o f\t pr o tecting \t peo ple\u2019s\t neg ative rights\t \u2013\t their\t rights\t not\t to\t be\t interfered\t with\t by\t others\t \u2013\t and\t providing\t public goods,\tsuch\tas\tstreet\tlighting\tand\tdefence.\t(\u2018Public\tgoods\u2019\tare\tgoods\tthat\teverybody wants\tand,\tonce\tthey\tare\tprovided,\teverybody\tbenefits\tfrom.\tThe\tstate\tis\tjustified\tin supplying \t them,\t and\t fo r cing \t peo ple\t to \t co ntr ibute\t to \t the\t co sts\t because,\t witho ut\t that element\t of\t organized\t coercion,\t it\u2019s\t rational\t for\t individuals\t to\t \u2018free\t ride\u2019\t on\t the contribution\t of\t others,\t which\t would\t lead\t to\t no\t supply\t of\t the\t good\t \u2013\t even\t though ever ybo dy\t wants\t it.)\t In\t par ticular,\t co er cive\t r edistr ibutio n\t is\t no t\t justified.\t If\t peo ple with\tproperty\twant\tto\tgive\tit\tto\tthose\twithout,\tthat\u2019s\tfine.\tPerhaps\tthey\tshould.\tBut\tit is\tno\tbusiness\tof\tthe\tstate\tto\tenforce\tsuch\ta\ttransfer.\tThis\tis\tthe\t\u2018libertarian\u2019\tvariant of\tliberalism,\tmost\tcoherently\tset\tout\tby\tRobert\tNozick\t(and\tdiscussed\tin\tPart\t1). Some\tpeople\tdon\u2019t\tlike\tliberalism\tbecause\tthey\tthink\tit\timplies\tthis\tkind\tof\tstate. To\t be\t a\t liberal\t is\t to\t be\t an\t advocate\t of\t laissez-faire\t economics\t and\t generally\t to favour\t minimal\t state\t interference\t in\t the\t lives\t of\t citizens.\t As\t I\t mentioned,\t this misidentification\tis\tespecially\tcommon\tin\teastern\tEurope. But\t not\t all\t liberals\t are\t libertarians.\t Rawls\t is\t not\t Nozick.\t A\t Rawlsian\t state\t is\t a more\t than\t minimal\t liberal\t state.\t Upholding\t liberal\t justice,\t enforcing\t those\t duties that\tpeople\thave\tto\tone\tanother\tin\tvirtue\tof\ttheir\tstatus\tas\tcitizens\twith\ta\tcapacity\tfor autonomy,\t involves,\t for\t Rawls,\t more\t than\t protecting\t people\u2019s\t negative\t property rights,\tproviding\tpublic\tgoods\tand\tcollecting\tthe\ttaxes\towed\tfor\ttheir\tprovision.\tIt involves\t the\t state\t in\t the\t business\t of\t securing\t compliance\t with\t his\t principles\t of justice\t \u2013\t no t\t just\t the\t pr o tectio n\t o f\t the\t basic\t liber ties\t but\t the\t distr ibutive\t aspect\t to o : fair \t equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity,\t and\t the\t differ ence\t pr inciple.\t Tr eating \t citizens\t with\t the respect\tdue\tto\tthem\tin\tvirtue\tof\ttheir\tcapacity\tfor\tautonomy\tmeans\tmaking\tsure\tthey have\t a\t fair\t share\t of\t the\t goods\t necessary\t for\t its\t exercise.\t Different\t versions\t of liberalism\t will\t imply\t different\t precise\t roles\t for\t the\t state\t \u2013\t including\t different degrees\tof,\tand\tjustifications\tfor,\tredistribution\t\u2013\tand\tthere\tis\tnothing\tin\tthe\tidea\tof a\t state\t fo unded\t o n\t the\t pr inciples\t o f\t \u2018liber al\t individualism\u2019\t that\t limits\t it\t o nly\t to \t the minimal\t role\t advocated\t by\t libertarians.\t Theoretically,\t coherent\t liberals\t can perfectly\t well\t support\t a\t welfare\t state,\t and\t more.\t (Now\t that\t we\u2019re\t talking\t about community,\t and\t related\t ideas,\t recall\t \u2013\t from\t Part\t 3\t \u2013\t that\t Rawls\t thinks\t that\t his difference\t principle\t provides\t an\t interpretation\t of\t the\t principle\t of\t fraternity:\t not wanting\t to\t have\t greater\t advantages\t unless\t this\t is\t to\t the\t benefit\t of\t others\t who\t are less\twell\toff.)","Objection\t3:\tLiberals\temphasize\trights\trather\tthan\tduties\tor responsibilities The\t most\t common\t complaint\t from\t political\t communitarians\t is\t that\t we\t hear\t too much\t about\t rights\t and\t not\t enough\t about\t duties\t and\t responsibilities.\t This\t may\t be true.\t Perhaps\t people\t are\t too\t quick\t to\t assert\t rights\t against\t others,\t and\t too\t slow\t to acknowledge\t duties\t and\t responsibilities\t to\t or\t for\t themselves\t and\t others.\t Perhaps Etzioni\t was\t right\t to\t urge\t a\t 10-year\t moratorium\t on\t the\t coining\t of\t new\t rights. Perhaps\ta\tlitigious\tculture\tis\ta\tbad\tthing.\tBut,\tif\tthere\tis\ta\tproblem,\tliberalism\tis\tnot to\tblame.\tAs\tshould\talready\tbe\tclear,\tthere\tis\tnothing\tin\tthat\tphilosophical\tapproach that\tdenies\tthe\tsignificance\tof\teither\tduties\tor\tresponsibilities. In\t the\t case\t of\t \u2018duties\u2019,\t this\t is\t a\t simple\t matter\t of\t conceptual\t clarity\t \u2013\t of understanding\t what\t it\t means\t to\t say\t that\t somebody\t has\t a\t right\t to\t something.\t The conceptual\t analysis\t of\t rights\t can\t get\t quite\t tricky\t \u2013\t the\t American\t legal\t theorist Wesley\t Hohfeld\t (1879\u20131918)\t identified\t four\t different\t ways\t in\t which\t the\t term\t \u2018a right\u2019\tis\tused\t\u2013\tbut\tfor\tmost\tpurposes\tit\tis\ta\tsafe\tworking\tassumption\tthat\t\u2018A\thas\ta right\tto\tX\u2019\tmeans\tprecisely\tthat\tothers\thave\ta\tduty\tto\tlet\tA\thave,\tor\tto\tgive\thim,\tX. Remember \t the\t connection\t between\t justice,\t r ights\t and\t duties.\t If\t A\t has\t a\t r ight\t to\t X, then\t it\t is\t no t\t simply\t the\t case\t that\t it\t wo uld\t be\t nice\t fo r \t A\t to \t have\t X,\t o r \t even\t that\t A ought\t to\t have\t X.\t To\t have\t a\t right\t is\t to\t have\t a\t justice\t claim,\t the\t kind\t of\t claim\t that implies\tduties\ton\tthe\tpart\tof\tothers. A\t very\t influential\t approach\t to\t rights\t \u2013\t that\t of\t Joseph\t Raz\t \u2013\t defines\t rights\t as follows:\t\u2018X\thas\ta\tright\tif\tand\tonly\tif\tX\tcan\thave\trights\tand,\tother\tthings\tbeing\tequal, an\t aspect\t of\t X\u2019s\t well-being\t (his\t interest)\t is\t a\t sufficient\t reason\t for\t holding\t some other\t person(s)\t to\t be\t under\t a\t duty.\u2019\t This\t contains\t two\t claims\t that\t go\t beyond\t the brute\tidea\tthat\trights\tentail\tduties.\tFirst,\ta\tclaim\tabout\twhat\tkind\tof\tthing\tit\tis\tabout\ta per so n\t that\t g ives\t him\t a\t r ig ht:\t an\t aspect\t o f\t his\t well-being \t (o ther wise\t kno wn\t as\t his \u2018interest\u2019).\tSecond,\ta\tclaim\tabout\thow\tthe\tinterest\trelates\tto\tthe\tright:\tby\tcounting\tas sufficient\t reason\t to\t hold\t others\t under\t a\t duty.\t Does\t A\t have\t a\t right\t to\t X?\t In\t Raz\u2019s view,\twe\tanswer\tthat\tby\tconsidering\twhether\tA\u2019s\tinterest\tin\thaving\tX\tis\tsufficient\tto hold\t another\t person\t (or\t persons)\t to\t be\t under\t a\t duty.\t Do\t I\t have\t a\t right\t to\t that Steinway\t piano\t I\u2019ve\t always\t wanted?\t No,\t because,\t though\t getting\t it\t would\t indeed contribute\t to\t my\t well-being,\t the\t well-being\t contributed\t is\t not\t sufficient\t to\t hold anybody\tunder\ta\tduty\tto\tprovide\tme\twith\tit.\tDo\tI\thave\ta\tright\tnot\tto\tbe\tmurdered? Yes,\tbecause\tnot\tbeing\tmurdered\tcontributes\tto\tmy\twell-being\tto\tsuch\tan\textent\tthat it\tdoes\tindeed\tgive\tus\treason\tto\thold\tothers\tunder\ta\tduty\tnot\tto\tmurder\tme. Sticking\twith\tthe\telementary\tthought\tthat\tlinks\trights\tand\tduties,\tsee\thow\tit\tmakes a\t no nsense\t o f\t the\t co mmunitar ian\t sug g estio n\t that\t liber alism\t g o es\t o n\t abo ut\t o ne\t but neglects\tthe\tother.\tOn\tthis\tanalysis,\tevery\ttime\twe\tmake\ta\trights\tclaim,\ton\tbehalf\tof ourselves\tor\tothers,\twe\tare\tsimultaneously\tmaking\ta\tduties\tclaim.\tThe\tmore\trights","people\thave\tagainst\tone\tanother,\tthe\tmore\tduties\tthey\towe\tto\tone\tanother.\tThe\trights and\t duties\t co me\t to gether \t or \t not\t at\t all.\t And\t the\t duties\t ar e\t owed\t to\t individuals.\t We don\u2019t\tneed\tto\tabandon\t\u2018individualism\u2019\tin\tfavour\tof\t\u2018community\u2019\tto\ttalk\tabout\tduties. Those\twho\tclaim\trights\tsurely\trealize\tthat\tthey\tare\tthereby\tmaking\ta\tclaim\tabout duties.\t Presumably\t the\t whole\t point\t of\t the\t rights\t claim\t is\t to\t demand\t that\t people provide\twhatever\tit\tis\tthat\tis\tbeing\tclaimed\tto\tbe\ta\tmatter\tof\tright.\tIt\u2019s\tpossible\tthat some\tpeople\turge\trights\tfor\tthemselves\twithout\trecognizing\tthat\tthe\timplied\tduties apply\t to \t them\t also .\t But\t that\t is\t just\t inco nsistent.\t To \t claim\t that\t I\t have\t a\t r ig ht\t to \t fr ee speech\tbut\tno\tduty\tto\trespect\tthe\tfree\tspeech\tof\tothers\tis,\tin\tthe\tabsence\tof\ta\treason why\tI\tam\ta\tspecial\tcase,\tclearly\tcontradictory.\tIf\tI\thave\ta\tright\tto\ttrial\tby\tjury\t\u2013\tso o ther s\t have\t a\t duty\t to \t pr o vide\t me\t with\t such\t a\t tr ial\t \u2013\t then,\t pr esumably,\t I\t to o \t have\t a duty\t to\t do\t my\t jury\t service\t when\t my\t number\t comes\t up.\t By\t the\t same\t reasoning, though\t the\t empirical\t claim\t linking\t the\t right\t to\t the\t duty\t raises\t more\t complicated questions,\tmy\tclaiming\ta\tright\tto\tvote\tcould\timply\ta\tduty\tto\tdo\tso\t\u2013\tif\tmy\tturning out\tto\tvote\twere\tnecessary\tto\tsustain\tthe\tdemocratic\tsystem\tto\twhich\tI\tclaim\ta\tright. Nothing\t I\t have\t said\t so\t far\t denies\t that\t some\t people\t are\t too\t quick\t to\t coin\t new rights,\ttoo\tready\tto\tregard\tas\t\u2018rights\u2019\tclaims\tthat\tdo\tnot\treally\thave\tthat\tstatus.\tThis is\tthe\tgrain\tof\ttruth\tin\tthe\tcommunitarian\tposition.\tPerhaps\tmany\tof\tthe\trights\tthat peo ple\t claim\t ar e\t no t\t r eally\t r ig hts\t at\t all.\t But\t the\t way\t to \t decide\t that\t is\t no t\t to \t invo ke the\tconcept\tof\t\u2018community\u2019.\tIt\tis\tto\tthink\tseriously\tabout\twhat\trights\tindividuals\tdo and\tdo\tnot\thave.\tThis\tis\twhere\tan\tapproach\tlike\tRaz\u2019s\tpays\toff.\tIs\tpeople\u2019s\tinterest in\ttheir\treligion\tnot\tbeing\tblasphemed\tagainst\tsufficient\tto\thold\tothers\tunder\ta\tduty not\tto\tblaspheme\tagainst\tit?\tThat\tdepends,\tfor\tRaz,\ton\thow\tharmful\tblasphemy\tis\tto people\u2019s\t well-being,\t and\t whether\t it\t is\t sufficiently\t harmful\t for\t us\t to\t judge,\t taking into\t account\t the\t cost\t to\t people\t of\t their\t not\t being\t able\t to\t say\t or\t write\t things\t they might\totherwise\thave\thad\treason\tto\tsay\tor\twrite,\tthat\tpeople\tare\tunder\ta\tduty\tnot\tto blaspheme.\t Do\t people\t have\t a\t right\t not\t to\t carry\t an\t ID\t card,\t not\t to\t be\t subject\t to r ando m\t dr ug \t tests\t when\t dr iving ,\t o r \t no t\t to \t under g o \t an\t AIDS\t test\t when\t applying \t to be\t a\t dentist?\t The\t answers\t are\t not\t straightforward.\t Nothing\t in\t Raz\u2019s\t approach\t is meant\t to \t sug g est\t that\t they\t ar e.\t But\t at\t least\t he\t allo ws\t us\t to \t see\t what\t co nsider atio ns are\t relevant.\t Communitarians\t may\t be\t right\t to\t reject\t some\t of\t the\t particular\t rights that\torganizations\tsuch\tas\tLiberty\t(in\tthe\tUK)\tor\tthe\tAmerican\tCivil\tLiberties\tUnion (in\t the\t US)\t assert.\t But\t if\t they\t are\t right,\t it\t is\t because\t people\t do\t not\t have\t the particular\t rights\t and\t duties\t in\t question,\t not\t because\t there\t is\t anything\t wrong\t with \u2018liberal\tindividualism\u2019. Similar\t points\t apply\t to\t responsibilities.\t Consider\t two\t issues\t where\t politicians, under \t co mmunitar ian\t influence,\t have\t talked\t abo ut\t the\t impo r tance\t o f\t peo ple\t taking on\t or \t acknowledging\t r esponsibilities:\t the\t r esponsibility\t of\t the\t able-bodied\t to\t take work\twhere\tit\tis\tavailable\t(rather\tthan\tjust\t\u2018scrounging\u2019\toff\tstate\thand-outs)\tand\tthe responsibility\tof\tparents\tto\tsupport\ttheir\tchildren\t(rather\tthan\trelying\ton\tthe\tstate\tto","do\tit\tfor\tthem).\tIn\tthe\tUK,\tthe\tfirst\thas\tresulted\tin\tchanges\tto\tthe\trules\ton\teligibility for\t unemployment\t benefit\t and\t more\t stringent\t disability\t tests\t (essentially\t to distinguish\tthe\tidle\tfrom\tthe\tgenuinely\tdisabled\tunemployed).\tThe\tsecond\tproduced the\t Child\t Support\t Agency,\t a\t government\t agency\t that\t tries\t (and\t often\t fails)\t to\t get parents,\t especially\t absent\t or\t estranged\t fathers,\t to\t contribute\t financially\t to\t their children\u2019s\t costs.\t In\t both\t cases\t the\t aim\t has\t been\t to\t redraw\t the\t \u2018responsibility boundary\u2019\t between\t the\t individual\t and\t the\t state,\t to\t establish\t a\t domain\t in\t which\t the individual\ttakes\tresponsibility\tfor\t(is\theld\tto\taccount\tfor,\ttakes\tthe\tconsequences\tof) her\tactions. Liberals\t have\t no\t problem\t believing\t that\t people\t should\t be\t responsible\t for\t the o utco mes\t that\t r esult\t fr o m\t their \t o wn\t fr ee\t cho ices.\t Of\t co ur se\t a\t lo t\t depends\t o n\t what counts\t as\t a\t \u2018free\t choice\u2019.\t How\t many\t options\t must\t be\t available\t for\t a\t person\t to choose\t from?\t How\t much\t information\t about\t the\t likely\t consequences\t must\t the cho o ser \t have?\t And\t eg alitar ian\t liber als\t ar e\t g o ing \t to \t emphasize\t the\t extent\t to \t which people\tare\tnot\tresponsible\tfor\tthe\tbackground\tconditions\t(such\tas\ttheir\tplace\tin\tthe distribution\t of\t natural\t talents)\t in\t the\t context\t of\t which\t they\t make\t their\t choices. Communitarians\t may\t be\t on\t to\t something\t when\t they\t bemoan\t a\t culture\t in\t which people\t rely\t on\t the\t state\t to\t ameliorate\t outcomes\t for\t which\t they\t themselves\t are responsible.\t It\t may\t be\t true\t that\t some\t strands\t in\t liberal\t thinking,\t by\t stressing\t the extent\t to\t which\t people\t are\t at\t the\t mercy\t of\t factors\t beyond\t their\t control,\t have co ntr ibuted\t to \t a\t cultur e\t which\t is\t to o \t r eady\t to \t let\t peo ple\t o ff\t the\t mo r al\t ho o k.\t But\t it can\t hardly\t be\t said\t that\t liberal\t political\t philosophy\t ignores\t the\t issue\t of responsibility.\tQuite\tthe\tcontrary. Certainly\t liberals\t have\t no\t problem\t making\t rights\t depend\t on\t the\t agent\t meeting certain\t conditions\t (so\t that\t the\t rights\t are\t \u2018conditional\u2019).\t This\t is\t just\t a\t matter\t of specifying\t the\t right\t with\t sufficient\t precision.\t To\t say\t that\t people\t have\t a\t right\t to welfare\tis\tvague,\tand\tsuggests\tthat\tthey\thave\tsuch\ta\tright\tirrespective\tof\twhat\tthey do\t (or\t don\u2019t\t do),\t which\t encourages\t the\t thought\t that\t liberal\t rights-talk\t lets\t people off\t the\t hook\t of\t taking\t responsibility\t for\t themselves.\t But\t it\t is\t straightforward\t to hold,\tfor\texample,\tthat\tthose\twho\tneed\twelfare\tassistance\tthrough\tno\tfault\tof\ttheir o wn\t have\t a\t r ig ht\t to \t it,\t wher eas\t tho se\t r espo nsible\t fo r \t their \t o wn\t neediness\t have\t no such\tright\tbut\tmust\tbear\tthe\tconsequences\tof\ttheir\town\tactions.\tOf\tcourse,\tdeciding who\tis\tresponsible\tfor\twhat\tis\textremely\tdifficult.\tBut\tthat\thas\tnothing\tto\tdo\twith\tthe mistaken\tclaim\tthat\temphasizing\trights\tmeans\tneglecting\tresponsibilities.","Objection\t4:\tLiberals\tbelieve\tthat\tvalues\tare\tsubjective\tor\trelative The\t American\t poet\t Robert\t Frost\t (1874\u20131963)\t said\t that\t a\t liberal\t is\t someone\t who can\u2019t\ttake\this\town\tside\tin\tan\targument.\tAdvocates\tof\t\u2018community\u2019\tsometimes\tclaim that\tliberals\ttake\tvalues\tto\tbe\tjust\t\u2018subjective\u2019,\ta\tmatter\tof\tindividual\tpreference\twith no\t objective\t criteria\t for\t deciding\t which\t are\t right\t or\t wrong.\t The\t emphasis\t on individual\t fr eedo m\t o f\t cho ice,\t the\t r espect\t fo r \t peo ple\u2019s\t o wn\t beliefs\t abo ut\t ho w\t they should\tlive\ttheir\tlives,\tis\theld\tto\tresult\tfrom\ta\tkind\tof\tscepticism.\tOnly\tif\tno\tways of\tlife\tare\tbetter\tthan\tany\tothers\tdoes\tit\tmake\tsense\tfor\tpeople\tto\tchoose\tsuch\tthings for\t themselves.\t Imposing,\t or\t even\t encouraging,\t any\t particular\t values\t is\t as unjustified\tas\timposing\tor\tencouraging\ta\tparticular\tflavour\tof\tice\tcream.\tValues\tare just\ta\tmatter\tof\ttaste,\tand\tthe\tstate\thas\tno\tbusiness\tpromoting\tthe\tones\tit\thappens\tto prefer.\tLiberals,\tit\tis\tsaid,\tare\tmoral\trelativists.\t(And\tmoral\trelativism,\tthe\tview\tthat \u2018anything\t goes\u2019,\t is\t the\t source\t of\t many\t of\t our\t social\t problems:\t drugs,\t family breakdown,\tetc.) It\t sho uld\t be\t clear \t that\t this\t char g e\t o f\t subjectivism\t o r \t r elativism\t canno t\t stick\t as\t a claim\t about\t all\t moral\t values.\t In\t believing\t that\t individual\t freedom\t and\t autonomy matter,\t and\t that\t the\t state\t can\t enforce\t those\t justice-related\t duties\t we\t have\t to\t one ano ther,\t liber alism\t canno t\t ho ld\t that\t values\t in\t g ener al\t ar e\t mer ely\t a\t matter \t o f\t taste. Somebody\t who\t denies\t the\t moral\t significance\t of\t individual\t freedom\t is\t making\t a mistake,\tnot\tjust\texpressing\ta\tpreference.\tFor\tthe\tobjection\tto\tget\ta\thold,\twe\tneed\tat least\t to \t disting uish\t between\t two \t kinds\t o f\t value:\t fr eedo m,\t auto no my,\t r ig hts,\t justice (which\t liberals\t value,\t and\t believe\t themselves\t to\t be\t objectively\t right\t to\t value)\t and particular\t ways\t of\t life\t that\t might\t be\t chosen\t (which,\t it\t might\t be\t thought,\t liberals believe\tto\tbe\ta\tmatter\tof\tsubjective\ttaste). This\t looks\t like\t the\t distinction\t that\t I\t mentioned\t when\t first\t pointing\t out\t that liber alism\t is\t indeed\t a\t mo r al\t do ctr ine.\t I\t sug g ested\t then\t that\t po liticians\t ar e\t war y\t o f talking\tabout\tmorality\tbecause\tsuch\ttalk\tis\toften,\tmistakenly,\tregarded\tas\tinvolving the\t pr escr iptio n\t o f\t par ticular \t ways\t o f\t life.\t With\t this\t distinctio n\t clear \t in\t o ur \t minds, we\t might\t want\t to\t say\t that,\t though\t not\t subjectivist\t about\t values\t like\t freedom\t and justice,\t they\t ar e\t subjectivist\t about\t what\t it\t is\t that\t people\t might\t fr eely\t choose\t to\t do with\ttheir\tjust\tshare\tof\tresources.\tWould\tthis\tbe\tright?\tConfining\tourselves\tnow\tto \u2018conceptions\t of\t the\t good\u2019\t \u2013\t philosophers\u2019\t term\t for\t views\t about\t what\t makes people\u2019s\t lives\t valuable\t or \t wor thwhile\t \u2013\t must\t liber als\t believe,\t with\t the\t har d-nosed utilitarian\t Jeremy\t Bentham,\t that\t pushpin\t is\t as\t good\t as\t poetry?\t That\t a\t life\t playing video\tgames\tis\tas\twell\tspent\tas\tone\tgrappling\twith\tphilosophy? The\tanswer\tis\t\u2018no\u2019.\tSuppose\tI\tam\tabsolutely\tconvinced\tthat\tlife\twith\tPlato\tis,\tfor everybody,\tobjectively\tbetter\tthan\tlife\twith\tPlaystation.\tThose\twho\tdisagree\twith\tme are\tnot\tjust\texpressing\ta\tdifferent,\tand\tequally\tvalid,\tpreference.\tThey\tare\tmaking\ta mistake.\t Does\t it\t follow\t that\t I\t should\t abandon\t my\t liberalism,\t renouncing\t my","commitment\tto\ta\tstate\tthat\tupholds\tpeople\u2019s\trights\tto\tchoose\thow\tthey\tlive?\tNot\tif\tI also\tthink\tit\tvaluable\tfor\tpeople\tto\tmake\tand\tlive\tby\ttheir\town\tchoices.\tSomebody who\t correctly\t chooses\t Plato\t may\t have\t a\t much\t better\t life\t than\t somebody\t who mistakenly\tchooses\tPlaystation.\tBut\tit\tbeing\ttheir\town\tchoice\tis\tcrucial.\tA\tstate\tthat fails\tto\trespect\tthe\tcapacity\tof\tpeople\tto\tchoose\tfor\tthemselves\tcould\tbe\tdepriving them\tof\ta\tnecessary\tcondition\tfor\ttheir\tlives\tgoing\twell.\tSo\tI\tcan\tquite\tconsistently urge\t the\t state\t to\t leave\t them\t to\t it\t while\t having\t no\t doubts\t whatsoever\t that\t they\t are getting\t it\t wr ong.\t In\t my\t pr ivate\t life,\t as\t an\t individual\t in\t civil\t society,\t I\t may\t devote myself\t to\t spreading\t the\t word\t about\t how\t wonderful\t Plato\t is.\t But\t liberalism\t is\t a doctrine\t about\t the\t justified\t use\t of\t the\t state,\t about\t the\t policies\t that\t it\t can\t properly pursue.\t My\t own\t views\t about\t how\t people\t should\t live\t can\t be\t regarded\t as\t quite irrelevant\tto\tthat\tissue\t\u2013\thowever\tobjectively\tvalid\tthose\tviews\tmay\tbe. For\t some\t critics,\t this\t liberal\t response\t involves\t a\t kind\t of\t moral\t schizophrenia. I\u2019m\t absolutely\t certain\t of\t and\t committed\t to\t the\t value\t of\t Plato\t \u2013\t for\t all\t my\t fellow citizens,\tnot\tjust\tme\t\u2013\tbut\tI\u2019m\tsupposed\tto\tignore\tthat\tfact\twhen\tit\tcomes\tto\tpolitics? Replace\t Plato\t by\t God.\t Imagine\t that\t you\t are\t committed\t to\t the\t truth\t of\t a\t particular religious\t doctrine,\t a\t doctrine\t that\t suffuses\t your\t entire\t way\t of\t life,\t providing\t you with\t a\t sense\t o f\t identity\t and\t meaning ,\t with\t member ship\t o f\t a\t par ticular \t co mmunity. This\t liberal\t move\t tells\t you\t to\t bracket\t those\t religious\t views\t for\t the\t purposes\t of politics.\t The\t worry\t about\t schizophrenia\t moves\t us\t in\t the\t direction\t of\t important communitarian\targuments\tthat\tare\tdiscussed\tlater.\tThe\tpoint\tfor\tnow\tis\tthat\tliberals don\u2019t\thave\tto\tbe\tsubjectivist\tor\trelativist\tabout\tvalues;\tthey\tjust\thave\tto\tprioritize\tthe value\tof\tindividual\tfreedom. Ironically,\t perhaps,\t there\t is\t a\t significant\t strand\t of\t communitarian\t thinking ag ainst\t which\t the\t wo r r y\t abo ut\t r elativism\t seems\t to \t be\t much\t better \t dir ected.\t T his\t is the\t strand\t that\t emphasizes\t the\t importance\t of\t respecting\t a\t community\u2019s\t values, traditions\t and\t shared\t understandings\t simply\t because\t they\t are\t those\t of\t the community\tin\tquestion.\tIn\tphilosophical\tterms,\tthis\tis\tmost\tclosely\tassociated\twith Michael\t Walzer,\t who\t urges\t that\t social\t justice\t requires\t us\t to\t distribute\t goods\t in accordance\t with\t their\t \u2018social\t meanings\u2019.\t (Alasdair\t MacIntyre\u2019s\t emphasis\t on\t the significance\t of\t socially\t defined\t roles\t for\t individual\t well-being\t is\t similar.) Suspicious\t of\t liberalism\u2019s\t supposed\t pretensions\t to\t universality,\t and\t its\t apparent abstr actio n\t fr o m\t so cial\t and\t cultur al\t co ntext\t \u2013\t think\t o f\t Rawls\u2019s\t o r ig inal\t po sitio n\t \u2013 communitarians\t have\t insisted\t that\t the\t proper\t way\t to\t do\t political\t philosophy\t is\t to interpret\tand\trefine\tthose\tvalues\tand\tprinciples\tthat\tare\timmanent\tin\tthe\tways\tof\tlife of\tparticular\tconcrete\tsocieties. This\tis\tindeed\ta\tkind\tof\trelativism.\tIn\tWalzer \u2019s\tformulation,\t\u2018justice\tis\trelative\tto social\tmeanings\u2019.\tIt\u2019s\tnot\tthat\tvalues\tare\tsubjective\tin\tthe\tsense\tthat\tthey\tare\tsimply\ta matter\t of\t individual\t taste.\t Individuals\t can,\t on\t this\t view,\t be\t wrong\t about\t them.\t But what\t they\t are\t wrong\t about\t is\t \u2018the\t correct\t interpretation\t of\t their\t society\u2019s\t shared"]
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
