Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Egalitarianism: Is Leximin the Only Option?

Egalitarianism: Is Leximin the Only Option? The most influential egalitarian perspective is undoubtedly Rawls's (1971, 1993), which assigns absolute priority to the least advantaged in society (the difference principle). However, many have claimed that even though an egalitarian perspective should imply some priority to the worst off, the Rawlsian perspective is too demanding. One response to this criticism is to argue in favour of an egalitarian perspective that never assigns absolute priority to the worse off, but which still includes limited priority to those members of society in distributive conflicts. A different response to the demandingness criticism is to agree that the worse off should not always be given absolute priority, but to argue that there are some cases where they should be. In this paper, we elaborate on this view, and look at the possibility of deviating from the leximin approach within this category of egalitarian principles. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Economics & Philosophy Cambridge University Press

Egalitarianism: Is Leximin the Only Option?

Economics & Philosophy , Volume 16 (2): 17 – Nov 9, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/egalitarianism-is-leximin-the-only-option-zP6XpPO8Nh

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press
ISSN
1474-0028
eISSN
0266-2671
DOI
10.1017/S0266267100000237
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The most influential egalitarian perspective is undoubtedly Rawls's (1971, 1993), which assigns absolute priority to the least advantaged in society (the difference principle). However, many have claimed that even though an egalitarian perspective should imply some priority to the worst off, the Rawlsian perspective is too demanding. One response to this criticism is to argue in favour of an egalitarian perspective that never assigns absolute priority to the worse off, but which still includes limited priority to those members of society in distributive conflicts. A different response to the demandingness criticism is to agree that the worse off should not always be given absolute priority, but to argue that there are some cases where they should be. In this paper, we elaborate on this view, and look at the possibility of deviating from the leximin approach within this category of egalitarian principles.

Journal

Economics & PhilosophyCambridge University Press

Published: Nov 9, 2000

There are no references for this article.