# Main Thesis Anderson’s main thesis is that the point of equality should be understood as “democratic equality”, which aims to eliminate oppressive social hierarchies and allow people to function as equals in a democratic society. She contests the dominant paradigms of “luck egalitarianism” and “resource-based equality”, suggesting they don’t fully create a just society. **Example:** Imagine a workplace that pays everyone the same wage and fosters a culture where everyone feels heard and respected. Decisions are made collectively, creating a more democratic and less hierarchical environment. # Definitions **Egalitarianism:** An egalitarian covers just equality of some sort: resources, opportunities, treatment, etc. Tends to rest on background idea that all people are equal in worth or moral status. **Equality:** This is the outcome, the “what.” Egalitarianism is the normative ideology that advocates for equality— it’s the “how” and “why” of achieving equality. **Democratic Equality:** Emphasizes the equal moral worth of individuals, focuses on eliminating social oppression and equipping all individuals to be participating, respected social members. **Equity:** Equity focuses on distributing resources based on the needs of the recipients. This differs from equality that aims for even distribution. **Luck Egalitarianism:** View that inequalities are just if they arise from choices but unjust if they arise from luck. (Anderson points out this can lead to social stigmatization for the “unlucky”.) **Resource-based equality:** Advocates for distributing goods, tangible (e.g. money) & intangible (e.g. opportunities), equally among all individuals. (Anderson argues this doesn’t offer individuals freedom or respect in society.) **Envy-Free Distribution**: A distribution of resources such that no one would prefer someone else's allocation to their own. # Summary Anderson criticizes recent egalitarian academic work as embarrassing and open to conservative critique. Their work feeds into the idea that egalitarians are envious, support laziness and irresponsibility, or support state overreach into private life. Egalitarian theories have strayed from their primary goals and have focused on compensating for people’s bad luck or cosmic injustice. Anderson posits that the true aim of egalitarianism should be to end social oppression and create communities of respect and equality. > “I shall argue that in focusing on correcting a supposed cosmic injustice, recent egalitarian writing has lost sight of the distinctively political aims of egalitarianism. The proper negative aim of egalitarian justice is not to eliminate the impact of brute luck from human affairs, but to end oppression, which by definition is socially imposed. Its proper positive aim is not to ensure that everyone gets what they morally deserve, but to create a community in which people stand in relations of equality to others.” The most fundamental test of any egalitarian theory is that “its principles express equal respect and concern for all citizens”. “Luck egalitarianism” or “equality of fortune”, which takes the fundamental injustice to be the natural inequality in the distribution of luck, fails this test. It excludes certain people based on fault, encourages pity & envy, and makes intrusive judgments about people’s ability to be responsibility. **Main argument:** Anderson proposes the egalitarian theory of “democratic equality,” a model that combines distributional principles with the construction of a community of equal respect. This is justified by relying on the obligations citizens owe each other in a democratic society. People ask for help as equals and the state doesn’t judge people’s choices or dictate their lives. The model stays sustainable by putting some limits on what it provides and expects people to take personal responsibility for the rest. > The theory I shall defend can be called ‘‘democratic equality.’’ In seeking the construction of a community of equals, democratic equality integrates principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect. Democratic equality guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at all times. It justifies the distributions required to secure this guarantee by appealing to the obligations of citizens in a democratic state. In such a state, citizens make claims on one another in virtue of their equality, not their inferiority, to others. Because the fundamental aim of citizens in constructing a state is to secure everyone’s freedom, democratic equality’s principles of distribution neither presume to tell people how to use their opportunities nor attempt to judge how responsible people are for choices that lead to unfortunate outcomes. Instead, it avoids bankruptcy at the hands of the imprudent by limiting the range of goods provided collectively and expecting individuals to take personal responsibility for the other goods in their possession. ### Justice as Equality of Fortune Justice as Equality of Fortune, often called “luck egalitarianism”, is based on redistributing fortune to compensate for random luck, good or bad. “Luck egalitarianism relies on two moral premises: that people should be compensated for undeserved misfortunes and that the compensation should come only from that part of others’ good fortune that is undeserved.” The concept is appealing because it appeals to humanitarian and sympathetic impulses. Critics say equality is futile due to individual differences and its wastefulness. Luck egalitarians have addressed these concerns by narrowing the scope of equality to specific areas (e.g. equality of opportunity rather than outcome) and avoiding interference in personal choices. Luck egalitarians stress the distinction between “option luck” (outcomes from voluntary choices) and “brute luck” (outcomes from circumstance beyond the individual’s control). Individuals are responsible for the outcomes of option luck but not for brute luck. The resulting theories of equality of fortune share a common core: a hybrid of capitalism and welfare state. In response to objections that egalitarianism is inefficient and impedes freedom, luck egalitarians prescribe rugged individualism for poor option luck. Luck egalitarians view the welfare state as an insurance company insuring citizens against brute luck. The central debate among luck egalitarians is whether equality should be pursued in the domain of resources (goods, money) or welfare (well-being, happiness). Because some people have expensive tastes, resource egalitarians argue that people should be given equal resources and then be held responsible for managing them. Welfare egalitarians, however, argue that well-being is what ultimately matters and it’s unfair to hold people responsible for their tastes and preferences. Additionally some, like the disabled, legitimately require more resources, > The role of individual preferences in equality of fortune shall be a central object of my critique. The debate between resource and welfare egalitarians isn’t about whether subjective preferences matter. “They differ only in that for welfare egalitarians, the claims a person makes are dependent on her tastes, whereas for resource egalitarians, they are a function of everyone’s tastes.” Resource egalitarians think fairness is determined by how resources should be values in a perfect market scenario. Imagine an auction where everyone has the same amount of money and equal chance to bid; the price would be determined by individual preferences. ### The Victims of Bad Option Luck > This section will argue that the reasons luck egalitarians offer for refusing to come to the aid of the victims of bad option luck express a failure to treat these unfortunates with equal respect and concern. Ronald Dworkin says the state should treat everyone equally, but luck egalitarians don’t necessarily do that. They say if you made a choice knowing the risks, you’re on your own. This leads to problems such as: - *Abandonment of negligent victims:* For example, a driver isn’t offered medical care for making an illegal turn. - *Discrimination among the disabled:* For example, if the faulty driver is disabled as a result of the illegal driving, society has no obligation to accommodate him. - *Geographical discrimination among citizens:* A citizen wouldn’t be provided relief if they took the risk of living in a disaster zone despite other available options. - *Abandonment of the prudent:* Someone may have particularly bad option luck and must urgently provide for their family so they drop their insurance. - More: *Occupational discrimination*, *vulnerability of dependent caretakers*, *exploitation* and the *lack of a safety net*, *paternalism*. Luck egalitarianism, in its pure form, fails to respect individual dignity by either abandoning people to their “deserved” misfortunes (for example, a single parent falling into povery) or adopting paternalistic policies that undermine autonomy (for example, a government mandated retirement savings plan). Modifications are necessary to align luck egalitarianism with the principles of equal respect and concern. ### The Victims of Bad Brute Luck > [This section] will argue that the reasons luck egalitarians offer for coming to the aid of the victims of bad brute luck express disrespect for them. ### The Ills of Luck Egalitarianism: A Diagnosis ### What is the Point of Equality? ### Equality in the Space of Freedom: A Capabilities Approach ### Participation as an Equal in a System of Cooperative Production ### Democratic Equality, Personal Responsibility, and Paternalism ### The Disabled, The Ugly, and Other Victims of Bad Luck ### Democratic Equality and the Obligations of Citizens # The Main Arguments ### Argument: Against Luck Egalitarianism - Luck egalitarianism seeks to redistribute resources to correct for inequalities arising from luck, not choice. - However, this can stigmatize beneficiaries of redistribution as “charity cases”. - This can be seen in policies such as means-testing and surveillance. - One could argue that the stigmatization could be lessened through universal policies, but Anderson claims this doesn’t address the fundamental issue of moral worth. - Therefore, luck egalitarianism fails to realize the goal of treating all individuals as equals with intrinsic moral worth. **Example:** A single mother lost her job through no fault of her own and needs government assistance. Under a luck egalitarian framework, she would receive aid. However, she might need to prove continually that she’s searching for work, submitting drug tests, and meeting other invasive requirements. This creates a stigma, making her feel less than others who don’t need assistance. ### Argument: Against Resource-Based Equality - Resource-based equality seeks to distribute material goods equally among all individuals. - However, this approach assumes that a just society can be created through resource distribution alone. - Resource-based equality doesn’t consider non-material aspects like social standing, agency, and self-respect, which are essential for individuals to function as equals. - Therefore, resource-based equality is insufficient as it does not address important social and psychological facets. **Example:** Consider a school district that provides every student with a free laptop, aiming for resource equality. This still doesn’t address other social factors like teacher quality, school safety, or parental involvement. Simply distributing resources (laptops) equally won’t create an equal educational experience. ### Argument: For Democratic Equality - Social relationships and individual agency, free from oppression, are crucial to a person’s ability to function as an equal in society. - Treating people as equals means recognizing their intrinsic moral worth, not just their utility to society. - So it follows that, any theory of equality shouldn’t focus on mere material redistribution but aim to remove social oppression and economic barriers. - For true equality, social institution must enable all to function as self-respecting, autonomous members of a collective decision-making body. (e.g. State, workplace.) - This might include universal healthcare and extensive labor rights beyond mere financial considerations. - Critics may argue that focusing on systemic issues and individual agency could dilute the immediate impact of resource distribution. - Anderson contends that resource redistribution alone won’t dismantle deeply rooted social hierarchies. For example, systemic racism or lack of quality education create an environment where people can’t function as equals. - Therefore, democratic equality, which focuses on the intrinsic moral worth of individuals and aims to remove oppressive social relationships, is a more comprehensive approach to achieving a just society. **Example:** Imagine again our example workplace from the Main Thesis on Democratic Equality. Here, it’s not just about equal pay; it’s about creating a culture that remove systemic barriers. For instance, flexible work hours for parents and caregivers, providing ongoing training, helping everyone grow and feel like a valued part of the community. “Egalitarians” advocate for equality in various domains: social, economic, political. They seek to minimize or eliminate individual differences in status, resources, and opportunities. They aim to create a society where everyone has a fair shot.