Distributive sufficiency, inequality-blindness and disrespectful treatment

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 27 (4):429-440 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sufficientarian theories of distributive justice are often considered to be vulnerable to the ‘blindness to inequality and other values objection’. This objection targets their commitment to holding the moral irrelevance of requirements of justice above absolute thresholds of advantage, making them insufficiently sensitive to egalitarian moral concerns that do have relevance for justice. This paper explores how sufficientarians could reply to this objection. Particularly, I claim that, if we accept that the force of the aforementioned objection comes from relational, and not distributive, inequalities, different strategies are open for sufficientarians in order to be sensitive to these concerns. Drawing on recent literature about the relation between distributive and relational egalitarianism, and the possibility of reducing one to the other, strategies of ‘internalizing’ and ‘externalizing’ relational egalitarian concerns to a distributive sufficientarian framework are explored. In turn, I suggest that both strategies fail in their standard versions, but argue that a particular ‘hybrid view’ about justice is an attractive candidate for the sufficientarian theorist.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Prospects for Sufficientarianism.Liam Shields - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (1):101-117.
Confucianism and acceptable inequalities.Sungmoon Kim - 2013 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (10):0191453713507015.
When and why is it disrespectful to excuse an attitude?John W. Robison - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (9):2391-2409.
Sufficientarianism and the Measurement of Inequality.Rudolf Schuessler - 2019 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 6 (1):147-173.
What is Wrong with Sufficiency?Lasse Nielsen - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (1):21-38.
Why Relational Egalitarians Should Care About Distributions.Christian Schemmel - 2011 - Social Theory and Practice 37 (3):365-390.
Principles of Distributive Justice.Jeppe von Platz - 2018 - In David Boonin, Katrina L. Sifferd, Tyler K. Fagan, Valerie Gray Hardcastle, Michael Huemer, Daniel Wodak, Derk Pereboom, Stephen J. Morse, Sarah Tyson, Mark Zelcer, Garrett VanPelt, Devin Casey, Philip E. Devine, David K. Chan, Maarten Boudry, Christopher Freiman, Hrishikesh Joshi, Shelley Wilcox, Jason Brennan, Eric Wiland, Ryan Muldoon, Mark Alfano, Philip Robichaud, Kevin Timpe, David Livingstone Smith, Francis J. Beckwith, Dan Hooley, Russell Blackford, John Corvino, Corey McCall, Dan Demetriou, Ajume Wingo, Michael Shermer, Ole Martin Moen, Aksel Braanen Sterri, Teresa Blankmeyer Burke, Jeppe von Platz, John Thrasher, Mary Hawkesworth, William MacAskill, Daniel Halliday, Janine O’Flynn, Yoaav Isaacs, Jason Iuliano, Claire Pickard, Arvin M. Gouw, Tina Rulli, Justin Caouette, Allen Habib, Brian D. Earp, Andrew Vierra, Subrena E. Smith, Danielle M. Wenner, Lisa Diependaele, Sigrid Sterckx, G. Owen Schaefer, Markus K. Labude, Harisan Unais Nasir, Udo Schuklenk, Benjamin Zolf & Woolwine (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Springer Verlag. pp. 397-408.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-07-07

Downloads
90 (#190,360)

6 months
9 (#314,693)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vincent Harting
London School of Economics

References found in this work

What is the point of equality.Elizabeth Anderson - 1999 - Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Why sufficiency is not enough.Paula Casal - 2007 - Ethics 117 (2):296-326.
Equality, priority, and compassion.Roger Crisp - 2003 - Ethics 113 (4):745-763.
The Prospects for Sufficientarianism.Liam Shields - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (1):101-117.

View all 19 references / Add more references