Philosophy Ph.D. Dissertations

What Is "Living as Equals": An Account of Relational Egalitarianism

Date of Award

2023

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Department

Philosophy, Applied

First Advisor

Michael Weber (Committee Chair)

Second Advisor

Dryw Dworsky (Other)

Third Advisor

Hrishikesh Joshi (Committee Member)

Fourth Advisor

Kevin Vallier (Committee Member)

Abstract

Although it seems that all contemporary political theories share the premise of moral equality, people disagree about what moral equality requires. Egalitarians usually believe more than formal equality is required, including economic interventions by the state to establish equality of well-being, capabilities, or some other substantive measures. Relational egalitarianism holds that the point of equality is the ideal of “living as equals” rather than certain patterns of equal distribution. However, it is hard to identify distinctive “core” commitment for relational egalitarians, because there is so much disagreement about what it means to “live as equals.” In this dissertation, I attempt to provide a more systematic account of relational egalitarianism, whereby I give an account of what it means to “live as equals,” provide a rationale for pursuing this ideal, and show how relational egalitarianism differs from other theories of justice. I reconstruct and critically evaluate several different accounts of “living as equals” and then argue for a five-condition account of “living as equals” — to put it simply, relational egalitarians are opposed to five kinds of problematic social hierarchies: esteem, respect, deliberation, attitude, and power. I argue that it is not enough to see the ideal of “living as equals” as instrumentally or non-instrumentally valuable for relational egalitarians, as they either miss the point of “living as equals” or provide weak support. It will be better if we adopt a fundamentally non-consequentialist perspective. I also argue that relational egalitarianism cannot be replaced with distributive egalitarianism because they have different perspectives on justice.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS