Utilitas 29 (2):137-152 (
2017)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
I here settle a recent dispute between two rival theories in distributive ethics: Restricted
Prioritarianism and the Competing Claims View. Both views mandate that the distribution
of benefits and burdens between individuals should be justifiable to each
affected party in a way that depends on the strength of each individual’s separately
assessed claim to receive a benefit. However, they disagree about what elements
constitute the strength of those individuals’ claims. According to restricted prioritarianism,
the strength of a claim is determined in ‘prioritarian’ fashion by both what
she stands to gain and her absolute level of well-being, while, according to the
competing claims view, the strength of a claim is also partly determined by her level
of well-being relative to others with conflicting interests. I argue that, suitably modified,
the competing claims view is more plausible than restricted prioritarianism.