Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of WelfareAuthor(s): Ronald DworkinSource:
Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 10, No. 3 (Summer, 1981), pp. 185-246Published by: Blackwell PublishingStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2264894
Accessed: 25/07/2009 22:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
 Blackwell Publishing
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philosophy and Public Affairs.
http://www.jstor.org
 
RONALDDWORKIN
What IsEquality?Part1:Equalityof Welfare
I. Two
THEORIES OFEQUALITY
Equalityis apopularbutmysteriouspoliticalideal.Peoplecanbe-come equal(orat leastmore equal)in onewaywiththe consequencethat theybecomeunequal(ormoreunequal)inothers.Ifpeoplehaveequalincome, forexample,theywillalmostcertainlydifferintheamountof satisfactiontheyfindintheir lives,and viceversa.Itdoesnotfollow,ofcourse,thatequalityis worthlessasan ideal.But itisnecessaryto state,more exactlythan is commonlydone,whatformofequalityisfinallyimportant.Thisis nota linguisticorevenconceptualquestion.It doesnotcallfora definitionofthe word"equal"or ananalysisofhowthatwordisusedinordinarylanguage.Itrequiresthatwedistinguishvariousconceptionsofequality,inordertodecidewhichof theseconceptions(or whichcombination)statesanattractivepoliticalideal,ifanydoes.Thatexercisemay bedescribed,somewhatdif-ferently,usinga distinctionIhavedrawninothercontexts.Thereisa dfferencebetweentreatingpeopleequally,with respecttooneoranothercommodityor opportunity,andtreatingthemasequals.Someone whoarguesthatpeopleshould bemoreequalin incomeclaimsthata communitythatachievesequalityof incomeisonethat reallytreatspeopleas equals.Someonewhourgesthatpeopleshouldinsteadbeequallyhappyoffersa differentandcompetingtheoryaboutwhatsocietydeservesthattitle.Thequestionis then:whichofthemanydifferenttheoriesof that sort is the besttheory?Inthis two-partessayI discussoneaspectof thatquestion,whichmightbe calledtheproblemof distributionalequality.Supposesome
?
I98I
byPrincetonUniversityPressPhilosophy&PublicAffairs
io,
no.3
0048-3915/8I/030185-62$03.IO/I
 
i86Philosophy&PublicAffairs community must choosebetween alternative schemes fordistribu-tingmoney and otherresources to individuals. Which of thepos-sibleschemes treats people asequals? This is onlyone aspect ofthe moregeneral problem ofequality, because it setsaside a varietyof issuesthat might be called,by way of contrast, issuesabout politicalequality.Distributionalequality, asIdescribe it, isnotconcerned withthedistribution of politicalpower, for example, orwith individualrightsother than rights tosome amount or shareof resources. Itisobvious, I think, that thesequestions I throwtogether under thelabel ofpolitical equality arenot so independentfrom issues ofdistributionalequality as thedistinction mightsuggest. Someonewhocanplayno roleindetermining,forexample,whetheranenviron-ment hecherishesshould bepreserved frompollutionispoorerthansomeonewho can play animportant role in thatdecision. Butitnevertheless seems likely thata full theory ofequality, embracing arange ofissues including politicaland distributionalequality,isbest approachedby acceptinginitial,eventhoughsomewhat arbi-trary, distinctionsamongtheseissues.Ishall consider twogeneraltheoriesofdistributionalequality.Thefirst(whichI shall callequalityofwelfare)holdsthatadistributionalschemetreats people asequals when it distributesor transfers re-sourcesamong them until nofurther transferwould leave themmore equalinwelfare. The second(equalityofresources)holdsthatittreatsthem asequalswhenitdistributes or transfers sothat nofurthertransfer would leave their sharesof thetotalresources moreequal.Each ofthese twotheories,as Ihavejuststatedthem,isveryabstractbecause, as we shallsee, there are manydifferent inter-pretations of what welfare is,andalso differenttheories about whatwouldcount asequalityofresources.Nevertheless,evenin thisabstractform,it should beplainthatthe twotheories willofferdif-ferentadviceinmanyconcretecases.Suppose,forexample,that a man ofsome wealth hasseveral chil-dren,oneofwhomisblind,another aplayboywithexpensive tastes,a third aprospective politicianwithexpensiveambitions,anotherapoetwithhumbleneeds, anotherasculptorwhoworksinexpensivematerial,and soforth. Howshall he drawhiswill? Ifhetakesequal-ity ofwelfare ashisgoal,thenhe willtakethesedifferencesamong
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more