What should egalitarians believe if they really are egalitarian? A reply to Martin O’Neill

In his article, ‘What Should Egalitarians Believe?’, Martin O’Neill argues, amongst other things, that egalitarians should reject both Telic and Deontic Egalitarianism and that they should adopt in their place a version of Non-Intrinsic Egalitarianism, specifically, the Pluralist Non-Intrinsic Egalitarian View. The central purpose of my article is to challenge O’Neill’s assumption that he can defend each of the various propositions that make up his position simultaneously. I do this with two arguments. First, I argue that in order to justify why egalitarians should adopt a version of Non-Intrinsic Egalitarianism, O’Neill is bound to rely on forms of egalitarianism that are either Telic or Deontic, and so he is no longer able to affirm that egalitarians should reject both Telic and Deontic Egalitarianism. Second, I argue that by allowing the inclusion of non-egalitarian reasons into the Pluralist Non-Intrinsic Egalitarian View, O’Neill opens the floodgates to an indefinite number of other non-egalitarian reasons, such that it is scarcely credible that the Pluralist Non-Intrinsic Egalitarian View really is an egalitarian view after all

Deontic logic · Economics · Egalitarianism · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics

• Utilitarianism Is a Form of Egalitarianism

  Open Access•Nikhil Venkatesh•Ergo an Open Access Journal of…•2025

  Incluir item

• Relational Egalitarianism

  Open Access•Kasper Lippert‐rasmussen, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen•Relational Egalitarianism•2018

  Incluir item