Priority and Desert

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):939-951 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Michael Otsuka, Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey have challenged the priority view in favour of a theory based on competing claims. The present paper shows how their argument can be used to recast the priority view. All desert claims in distributive justice are comparative. The stronger a party’s claims to a given benefit, the greater is the value of her receiving it. Ceteris paribus, the worse-off have stronger claims on welfare, and benefits to them matter more. This can account for intuitions that at first appear egalitarian, as the analysis of an example of Larry Temkin’s shows. The priority view, properly understood, is desert-adjusted utilitarianism under the assumption that no other claims pertain
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
RENPAD
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Prioritarianism: A Response to Critics.Adler, Matthew D. & Holtug, Nils

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-04-02

Total views
236 ( #18,254 of 48,822 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #31,555 of 48,822 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.