Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Egalitarianism across Generations.Andreas T. Schmidt - 2024 - Utilitas 36 (3):242-264.
    Egalitarian theories assess when and why distributive inequalities are objectionable. How should egalitarians assess inequalities between generations? One egalitarian theory is (telic) distributive egalitarianism: other things being equal, equal distributions of some good are intrinsically better than unequal distributions. I first argue that distributive egalitarianism produces counterintuitive judgements when applied across generations and that attempts to discount or exclude intergenerational inequalities do not work. This being so, intergenerational comparisons also undercut the intragenerational judgements that made distributive egalitarianism intuitive in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Do We Have Relational Reasons to Care About Intergenerational Equality?Caleb Althorpe & Elizabeth Finneron-Burns - 2025 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
    Relational egalitarians sometimes argue that a degree of distributive equality is necessary for social equality to obtain among members of society. In this paper, we consider how such arguments fare when extended to the intergenerational case. In particular, we examine whether relational reasons for distributive equality apply between non-overlapping generations. We claim that they do not. We begin by arguing that the most common reasons relational egalitarians offer in favour of distributive equality between contemporaries do not give us reasons to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Global justice, sovereign wealth funds and saving for the future.Elizabeth Finneron-Burns - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
    In this paper I give some reasons why ‘saving for future generations’ is not as straightforward as it sounds and when we might be skeptical of the permissibility of states saving for future citizens, even though such savings are often seen to be morally praiseworthy. I emerge with an account of when state savings for future citizens through sovereign wealth funds may be morally permissible. I argue that we ought to follow a modified version of Armstrong’s criteria for the moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark