6 Equality, Priority, and the Levelling Down Objection* Lamy Temkin 1. Introduction. ‘hs ey ams to clay 2 number of se ding ep TPE Flee tncase te won Derwen gully and pst, and none shoul be wmsrunanal eaten ously” 29 SESBELGa detain, However ti ey pepe alt 1 42 este Laing Dow omeon cx, more acutely the key se Sah beer unde: he Leting Down Oo, “Te cecling Down Onecton props, the mat prevalent ancora ume and ut fe th TRESS omeplatan wel many hike hemstes se rtaae Taam tia athe me of te Leveling Dow Beneaea a pesom amen view hat |e he Sager The So erst encrmous apes but age that thee enon 0 doubt ee aaeetng the mgmt avin Thoth the Slogan SDSSEG Giant ter Uaerty on, 90) Harm Ooo ey Ui ote an omy dn Be te ener se yefng Chote Some Questo and Comment Seppe i ag 2 pe cy el, ny sconce teal bu te tc Tye Cone Fe ere cmc i hl ag Fae, Tom enon Fa er eave lian Spec thank a eo obs Broom, Sa fens eon, and ms fal Del ari ai te Tae en ket acme om oer mek ine, 0 Ye Tren pmred ty trtng abst ths oe yaliy, ry, and he Lving Down Obeton 129 and the Leveling Down Objection can be rested fam right, {he Leveling Down Objection not the evasating objection many have thought It tobe. Comspondingy, one need ot rt of ‘tay revi epltacaniam beeate ofthe Leveling Down Objecon. "Tne eay idea into thineen sections. section I presen and disci a view, protaranam, tat soften conte eth el thant tage that peoritacanism sno concerned wth equ) pers and hence that fis not plausible at a verion of nonstur el earn "oy ile 3 Yin of Frsvarmenal egaltaranism, In econ i, [preset the Level Down Objection ass power objection 1 nem-nstarestl egal fananism Tsgen that some ray be aerated to peotatlasa 1 the mos eles hind of egalterian poston, since it avoids ‘he Leveling Down Objection Most important | suggest at meh ‘ofthe Leveling Down Objections fore Is derived from a pesos: Stecting view cl he Slogan. tn secdons TV, 1 presen and ses the Slogan. I begin by shoning tht the Slogd has wee Spread pen an hsene may ess whee Imp loveked TFpext te how the Slogan must be inerpreted fo supper the "stong conchisons for whieh els used T then show Row the lo- {ont chalenged by Derk Paris Nom identity Problem, and ee trove so by a principe of proportional justice. Moce. general, 1 ‘att ot ht any npesona moral pnp of wich the pence Fpropotonaljstice Is bat one patculsly appealing example ~ Stal confics with persomaecting postion Tike the Slogan. F ‘aly, I te that tMe Slogan ast 8 connection between one’ theo ofthe good regnding sltinterest and one's theory f te ood fegudng Oeomey a0 conser whee 09 pale Cees tne good suppor soch a connection. Canvassing the Metal State ‘Theos the Deshe Fuliest Theory, and the Objective it They, T'ouggest tt no pausble theory o the good support the sr tents tnd conclusions for which te Slogan hasbeen invoked. 10 ‘Stcton Ri, respond to ebjetions Jon Broome ties oY Ce tia example of popontonsl justice. In Seton XI 1 presen an Srqument of Ingar Person’, suggesting that plodaranism and ‘oninstromenta gstaranisn Both express Impersonal vews, 20d ert hve» commen em In he peso acing "pit ofthe Leveling Down Objection. If tht igh, then one fut ot to forsake non Instrumental egalitarianism in favor of Srortaranism beensse ofthe Leveling Down Objection. Fly Insecion Xl, contr whether realy wing to relct theLeveling Down Objection, and accept the implications of non: Instrumental egalitarian, I am. Tough none of this sys guments depends on this ans. 1, Proritarianism, instrumental egalltalanism, and ron instrumental egalitarianism Many who think of therseves a earns old 2 few ke the following one. They want each pero fo fare av well she poss biy can, bot they ae expecllyconceraed wit the worse-ot Tas ‘iow ends to favor redabuton between the Better and worse. (HF cv fs losin ty accompanies mich reitton. arly, ow much lots in wily to the beterof woul be compenst byieser gains to the wore-olf mould depend upon Mow much freater welt oF pony, was atached to one’s concern for the forcoff any even, on this view the wore off someone was The geater peony they would fesive tn our moral eiberations “his only 9 rough sttement ofthe Siew i question, bat futon fr my purposes. The hey pont fo note that, while {his ie one has special concer for the wore.off One's tate goa is for each f fre a ell posse ‘Since Rumanitarans ace people wo want fo improve the lot of the mone (hee principal concern being 0 releve suri), ‘nce called such a wew ‘extended Romaniainisn” Derek Past calle soch 2 view The ry View, expressing the fact that fhe views fsus i on giving pronto the wor-of For spe lity, I aball refer tothe view, elegantly as pritarntn. "is a erin of egalitarian, portray faces many. prob: tems. For example Is unable to account forte widely held ve that towering the best-of group 10 the lve of the next best-of ‘would lec and unequivocally improve a stations equality. Nor ‘an It sceount fo the widely eld view that proportional increase, ins populntio’s levels would worsen Inequality not iaiprove s £5, fr enample although many televe dat station where some twee at level 2000 and others at Level 1004, would be bee, ol! hinge cones, than one where some were 3 level 20 and others level 10, tt ea to deny that from an egalitarian perspective the inequality Ie worse in the former station ~ where there {2's gap.ot 1000 betwen the beter and werse-od than In the lace suation = where there only gap of 10. Aéationally Proctvianism cannot plausibly account for why Sore epalians ani, Py, and he Ling Down Obst 129 da Go coe Plaga feet or shame about how they fare relative to others. Ae al fom proitsnaninm, one would have sean to repret thatthe worse ff fae badly, and that nether he nor socety Is doing enough Shout their ot, but one's only reget about how he fates, should be fat he Is ot even beterof, pot that he fares wel whe other Finally, consider Diagram 1, where the column heights represent, how well of people a and'the widhs represent the number of people in each poup. “Ascording fo portaranim, tere would be mo renin for one to prefer ato in fac, there wouldn't even Be reason ~ a ean = fo prefer C to D, ‘A'sn egalitarian positon, the problem with prostatanisa i clear. Ts nt cone ith equality. tual describes a elation btsning Between people thats set compra. People ate Sore ot les equal telat to one anater Peoria te con. ered with how people fare, but nt with ow the fare ceive since many prontactans think of themselves as egalitarian, 1 ray be wetl to dings Between tment aed no-one ‘paasacism On insameatl egalitarianism, ego Ir exteastealy ‘ahuble~ that i valuable when t promote some other valuable desl On noo instrament ealtariniom, equal i intanstcaly ‘valuable ~ that valeable tn He, over and above the extent ‘whieh ft promotes other eas ‘Norniramentaepltasians cae about spay. More special, on my vem, they cate about wnereved, nso, equals, Whi they sega a bad os objectionable, because unfat. Thus, the nom iesttmentalealiaian thks Is bad or objectionable,to same extent ~ because vine ~ for sme to be wore of than bothers through ne fault or choice of thelr own. Importantly, fomintrumentalegaltarians neeé not belive that equal fi that matters or even the weal thet matters most Bu they Trove tat equity one ea among others, at hs inependent "Fo sim op. Proralaniem i often conflate wlth eglataism, ‘Tis ir unfortunate, As we have see plomtaransi expresses & {pecial concern or priory, or the wore Butt oat con ‘euned with how the woreeof fate relative 1 others. TUS, Priontariani esnics vast nests in inequal, fneesaty 1 Improving ~ however sligly ~ the woseaf. Indeed. 5 sce, fertasaniao approver vs inceae nthe level ofthe ery bes. ‘St, as Tong at those Increases don come atthe expense of the tote In terms of the eta prion thee stustion warants. OF ‘oun, ging poet tothe worse wil generally promote equal, by fovoring many unser Hoes better t9 worse. a5 well 35 ge Ing Benes othe wocseot rater than similar benefits fo te betta Hence, puoniatianism fy pause 2 a pratt ‘yataran postion. However, in tl spec eoraraais not nike eins, whe aso frequently favors anes fom ‘eter forse, or Beneting te woe rather than the beter OF, att way of increasing tity il, nether prorkananisen nor ‘tstacnist Is plausbe ae» nonsnstrumentalegstanan poston. Nether values eu, prs I, Priortarianism, the levelling down objection, and the Slogan [Ass weron of non instrumental egltartanism,prortarnis i ‘nonstaer, Nevertheless | thik | understand why many who think of themawes a epaltarans ze dan Yo People ne drawn to priortarianisn no aecesaiy a 9 position expreting hat the ‘ltaran dor cave abou, but ater tr poston expresing what ‘She shod cae about Beside giving dct expression to a powell Concern for those worseof, it may sem the relective egltaian 12 foved to pioritaranam, tat fs the closest tng to an altaian postion one ean pasa adopt. The git of tls Ww ‘Some that poontaransm i pause eslon of noninsrumenta fpataranim, but rather that nondnsteumentalegataanis i Smplaunibe Hence, i one generally favors transfer frm Better 10 ay, ry ond the Ling Dow Ofcion 131 ee] Diagram 2 womtotf~ a people wh think of themselves as epalitaans = ‘ne shouldbe 2 prota lca fs on ratumentl ealtaran “Many are tracted fo the oregeing by the Laing Down Objet. Diagram 2 helps state this objection, Suppose we could tnsfor A Into By Many find tard to be: hove there could be any enson got to do this. In B, eyo 8 beter of than they were In A. In fact B's worseo8 have even Deter lve than As beterof Tre, thee greater inegualty i B than A But 10 wt? Does’ tha jst Stow we shoud’ attach weight to equality pers? Aral, one might wonder, ov cold inequality be ba when thre sno oe for whore ts wore? Or coneder Cand D, and Imagine that Disa worl where half ae bind, Cs world where all ae. One could abys teasfor D inso © by puting oat the eyes of the sighted. However, many Sad the view that this would improve the situation i even one respect ‘more than incomprehensible, they Sad H abominable That © 1 tore equal than give one a eso af al they tink, to tans. form Dino Cr and only @ hardened misanthrope or someone totvated by the bates form of envy, coud think otherwise. tet i they ath, howe could Cs greater Cquality make 1 Dee I ony Fespet i these sno one for whom iis beter?" Tris clea why conlderaions sich atthe preceding Rave been ubved the Leveling Down Objection. Non sastumentalealita his attacher value to equality ‘self So. non-insteumental tfaltialem would suppor transforming 8 ito A and D Int By eveling down’ the reeeane groups. But such moves Dene mo dhe, ot even the wor-of, Indeed, the move ftom B to A would Sgnesony ham the Worse-o8 In such eases, many think surly {hve is nothing to be sid in favor of promoting grester equally.182 tay Temkir ester equality only desirable when Benes the woreof et ‘Shes futs em leveling down the Deer Hence, the Ceveing ‘Bown Obiection concludes, equally i ony extrinscally valuable Per tnmacllyvatuable, Non-insrumentaletarianisy shows be ected “uh omaderations have temendous fore, and | ele they serie the thinking of mor nen-egaarans. Comespondin, ne can see how the Leveling Dow Objection might de some ORE Sheena about the wotteof and who favors cedstsbution het ufiten) benefits the worse, rom non instrumental ‘haaranam towseésplotaanism* dare that pelotaanim fe 2 plausible poston fn sown right Hence T bate thee ts rnin tobe a posaan. 1 aso be Be tne preceding considerations ae extremely pause ut they see essine Ends competing. They do Rot force the noe ieeekemal egattarian to abandon fer'view in for of Seeman, one deeldes to adopt proaranism ad abe pet noncnstumental egalicanisny 1 should be for reson other ‘han those presented above A the ent of the Leveling Down Objection s «postion fer ‘te Slogan: One suaton cot be worse (or btn) than a Ber thee sno ome for whom 5 worse (or ete) ene Part sees to such a postion a5 the Person afecting Claim * ‘Phe Pero afecing Claim expresses the vew thet uteomes sould Teen soy term the way the sentient Deing host Chicas ae aca for beter or mouse. A change mbes ah ou cae Meter insofar at tenlent beings ate afleced postvely ibonested), worse ioc ae setnt beings ate flected nepatively {Raumea). Referring vo the poston In question =the Slogan” has vem lavantages and T Shall continue to do 30 in hi esa. ontven a we will see Tne, tf important to both eeoane, nd emphasize, the pesonafecting spr of the position Toelce It the Slogan that gives the Levelling Down Objection muh of powerful shstorel fore. Inde, Hf one cles the ‘Bogan, there seems tbe ite pincipled bast for efectng the se ramentl egaltarian’s (modest?) claim that undeserved In uy is unfa, hatunfames sad, and hence tat tere iat {Sit one respect in which outcomes Ike Band D, Diagram 2 ain, ty, omd he Ling Down Ojecoe 133 tre wosse than A and C. But the Sloan can, and should, be cha lenges the nest seven seerlons, shall mou sch a chaleage In doing tis wil be useful, and lumiating. to interpret ane ‘ste the Slogan iis om tems In paul, | want to a8" {he slogan an implation Ins mich wider conten han spy ‘sole in challenging non istamenta egaltartais. This wl iow us to sce the Slogans shortcomings more ces, and enable Ustocvade the charge aftchng the Slogan, or begging the question alt spin ede Yo preserve non inseumental eaten (Of couse, inthis essay, my primary interes nthe Slogan con eens te impllestion® for priritacianiom, non instremental tgaltaanism, andthe Leveling Down Objection. But as we sha {S21 ihink the Slogan tat faesching Impliestion® whieh souls be questioned whatever one's views abot non-insromeatal egaltatntsn Tat me turn now to 2 diet consideration ofthe Slogan ise 1V, Cases implicitly invoking the Slogan Like certain oter slogans for example, each peson is deserving bf equal consideration sn vespect ~ the Slogan enjoys wigerpread fceprance I ungeliee many aguments im philosophy and econ ‘mics and thore appealing toi span a wide cange of Ueoretcl postionr In sation, moa believe the Slogan express 4 deep nd imprtan ath. So, Ikea powefl modern-day Octhae' rz, titen the Siogan ir wielded to carve out shape, or white down the domsin of moral value ‘Unfortetely the Slogan almost always invoked oth imple: tay and etry. eras has ben thovght am ultimate mol Pancple providing futifeation fr oer claims, but not Hef heeding, or capable of, jstseaton. More Ukely, the Slogan a teen though ton obvious to nee explicacnowledgmento ees "her alone might setorilly ak, how could ome station be srore than another if here lem or for whom Its Worse” believe the Slogan should be seected, and that in any event tne Slogan dors not support most othe patclar postions It has been thought to suppor (aso belive tht caefl fection about the Slogan reques us to get much clearer than we preiouly ave out diferent theote ofthe ood. Before defending these clin, ler me begin by ofering 9 sample ofthe many cases, besics the Leveling Down Objection, where the Slogan s seemingly invoked.2) & station 1s Poet eptimal I 90 one's tot could be improved without mesenng the lot of someone te. Eeonomits tisk non Farto oplinal situations ae neice Many in fa, nk that Inenever we could Improve the lot of some, without worening the Jot of anyone es, would te watinal, and wrong, motto do Jo. ‘Te positon cerves uch offre trom the Sopa. Ate ll 8 ‘non-fat opti ston cade ete than 9 (more) Peto opin ne hough there at no one fr whom was Ete, pet ot be ‘ter Watton wrong ofa 0 Warstom he me ato he ite '@) The Sloan alto explains why some fod Rawls Difetence ‘ineple (DP) more plausible than egaltarsniim, and others od {too egalitarian tobe plausble When DP aloes vast gains for te better-ff t promote tiny gains for the wesead, tis often defended by invoking the Slogan Likewise, DP i erie via the Slogan for fling to pert gains tothe beef that are not 3 fompanied by gains tothe wont of” ‘@) Though the point of Neots Wit Chambedan example i nat ierty upset patent, mich of Is force seme tive 0m ‘he Slogan. Thuy Nowe res ach of these persons chase to ge twenty-five cents of thee ‘money to Chamberlain. They could bave spent ton golng to the movies, oF candy bars. Can anyone ese complain on [Pound of jure... After someone transfer someting to Wilt Exambesan tid parts sl have tel leglate Shae ther Shares ave not changed ‘Again he implication sems 1 be 1 fhe exchange it eannot be tot.” (4) Locke's theory of aequstion olds that people have a eop- erty ign to any unowned thing they ax thee Tabor with ‘at Teas there thre Is enough and a good let in common for others. NNosok writes of ths postion Dat ‘the cual point i wheter speropeation ofan unowned object worsens the station of thes" tems the implication le thats longa here Is noone for whom Acquring the property 1 worse cannot be bad {S) Consider Dagra 9. sn ucasing such diagram, Derk Fast wrote: I no one fs werened by Lat us compate A with As. The only aiference ts tat As com thins an eta group, to have lives worth ving, and who sect yu, Py, andthe Ling Dew Obecton 138 no one els. seems (hard)... to Bele that Ay is worse ‘han A Ths implies that would have ben beter I he eats ‘sroup had never existe If ete ves ae worth ving, S04 hy lect no one ese, why Is bad that these people ate alive?™ ere, to, the Slogan seems to suppor Pati's position, forthe ‘question i, "how could Ae be wore han A when there leno one for whom it & worse” {) In 'Righs, Cons, and Palme’ Thomas Scanlon observes ‘eights... need to be fisted somehow, and how other than By sppel tothe human interests thei recognition promotes and po- tects? This tems tobe the uncontoverble sight ofthe clases] tans" Many extend Scanion's view fo. argue aint the lnerinse vue of respecting Highs. Thus tir contended the since the whole point ofa system of rights (mast be) 10 ro mote and protect human, or senien, interest, there 0 reason fo respect apparent night in thore cater where doing 40 fas to promote or protect anyone’ interes, Analogous, many ca thee Ss nothing inrinstealy ba avout violating spparent rights when {his Denes some sn harms no one. These clean derive mush of thew force fom the slogan, according to which station there rigts ave volatd (or respected) camo! be worse (or Dette) than one where they are ot, here Is mo ene for whom Its worse (or better). (0) Finally, we may note that standard objections to sule- uiitananise, viruebaied, and deontologealtheones ten pale ‘those noted against equally and ights-bsed theories. Tati they Javolve consructing cases where no one beneSts and some are heme, oF where some DeneSt and no one ls bared, i only oat oes of doesnt (a) follow the rae () Bet wituousy, or 6) do‘one's duty in tes theoues terms Once more, much ofthe force ft thee bletons sem to test on the Slop’ spe “Test ae merely some ofthe poston, bis the Leveling Down ‘jection, Leplicy involving the Slogan. The st by no means ‘exhaustive Ar we shall ee, one shouldbe wary of any appeals 9 the Slogan. Hence, ane must sek oer jusieaions fr the pot tions ene tnds pause YV. Interpreting the Slogan “Te Slogan Is ambiguous. In tis essay, shall interpret the logan 2 thorband forthe following elaine ‘one situation camo be worse fo bette than anather in ony ‘erp if hare eo ot foe whom Je wore (oF bt) Hom rape ‘als interpeetation makes pln the Sogn’ fl fore I 0" mesey that one stustion fs never worse than another i there lt 90 one for whom its worse a I this might be tue 8 some espe Dt otal things considered ater, cs that one station cam tot be wore than another tere sno ‘one for whom it i worse rit there Is no respect in which thn might bem, and hence D0 ‘ston that in some eases the pone festares might outweigh fhe negative ones Ts this suong postion that explains peophe's content shee cal uses of he Slogan. Moreover, while wake interpretations of fhe Slogan te possible, they are 1 interesting and would not leense many eonelaions for ore the Slog hs been invoke I partcla, the aon-egaltaian ho ists at Woe Where Dal are sighed and hall ae Bling, thee i mo son ot ll put ut the eyes ofthe sighted imply eles on potion Ike the fbregoing to sale out nowinsremesta eaiteanin, The elain t fot merely thatthe lll word is wore than the ballind rol al ings conte, asi the valve of equally inthe all Blind wort 8 outelghea bythe peter eal of blinding the sige Rather, the sini Is that since there 0 verpet In whieh blinding the sighted te better for snyone = by Aypothet ant Detter for ether the sighted or the lind - there no espe it Sthich the situation Is bt Afri, the rater ely in the slkblind steation dost not make tt station in any way Bt et, Ponty, end te Lring Bow Octo 397 : | Ls | tao 4 | ence, equaity as no ntese valve, and non-istumental eps fatal mst be rejected ‘VL Challenging the Slogan, Part One: the Non-Identity Problem ‘the Slogan hae great force and appeal. Nevertheless, must be Ieee o ited in sepe. To vee ti, consider «vation of Dee rs Nawdetty Prati, isteated with the aid of Diagram 4. eth representa generation contemplting fv polices On the us for today policy they have chilaen immediatly and deplete patual resources for eurtent ase. B would est ey would Be Deter of, bat tel iden would fate less well 7 the take care Sf tomorow policy they osipone having cilen few eats and conserve resources. C would es they would fre sight less well than they do now, but the cilden they hive woul fate a8 well atthe Mom believe the ake ete of tomorow pole sould be adopted. sur this judgment cannot be acounted forgiven the Slogan. This foloms fiom two psusble postions defended by Part (the Children bor iC ould Be diferent people than the chien bor In Ging conceive later, they would come from diferent sperm tov os some might think tlevan, bers by older and nts patents, ane v0 on) and (Q) one cannot ham of teagan he interest of someone who Wil never eu ANE, more pati lati, one doer ot harm someone b fling to conceive et Clven and Other no one te live for today plleyaderts fr the tore not the pares, who fre beter In B than i either & or C Mot the chien in B, because thy wouldn't exist if the “abe care of tomortow policy was adopted, and not the children In C, be use they don't exist and ever wil exit It the "live fr oypolieys adopted, Om the other han, if the take are of tomorow oley adopted there wil be sone sovenely afete, namely ‘he parent, According tothe Slogan, then, the ive fr today” Poy ‘ont be wore than the take car f tmnt” poly, since thee {Bro oe for whom Its wore Dt thief surely wrong. The ‘ve for today’ polly tr worse than he take care of tomorow pale.” ‘Thus the Slogan ist be ejected or ited in scope Many fad the Non-Identey Problem puzaing. Mos, fleas ini tial, ty to undermine Some question assurptionP, others Q shai nor sess such view They ate sey mistaken, ‘Mote plus, some belleve Part argument doesnot subwtan- tilly uagermine the Slogan. Tey ci that what we learn from ard is that theres 2 lied and pecllar range of eases where fhe sogan doesnot apply = in particular, does not apoly Inthe arom range of cates where our eles determine wo comes to ssi by pacing Ms cussion ofthe Non dentity Problem in ‘apter on fore genertions, and second, by empbastlng th this problem sss ecaute the identities of people n the Fret future can be wey enlyaleted’ and thus beease, In the die nt outcomes, diferent people woud be bom ‘Vil, Challenging the Slogan, Part Two: saints, sinners, ‘and proportional justice Is the Slogan acceptable In all eases besides those where our ec Sons determine who comes fo be? | think nt. Consier Diagram Sand the eneepton of prapoton! ui according 10 whe tere pay, yond he Leng Dow Oct 139 gt 0 be 3 roan be dong wean ang wh eprewating te ints quay of ves, ana they columns the sn fr Furthemore,asume A scurtely recs Hw the 0 groups "Shoul fae according to proportional justice and tel earthly Hee. iery, in acoadance with proportional tie, A woul be beter ‘an 8 "s this impseale? Many, including Astor, Kant, and Ross, tne thought not. Yet according tothe Slogan, not ony woud B be better than A, there would be na expect in which Was Wow ‘Most would Sn this hard to accept Tey believe there Would be something orally bas about the eile ase marderes fing tester than the mort benign sats, even Hf there was o ere fot sshom i ae wore ‘These constrains sugges that unless one is willing fo relet ropotional juice ent, and abandon the view tas there i Some respect In hich 8 worse than A one must rejet the Sto fan To the question how could one sration be wore than another {Phere mo oe for whom it fs worse? one might rerpond. it ‘ould be worse if it were worse garding proportional jst’ TAS ‘would expres he vw tht an outcome's being beter o worse fe Prope sma ll at mater, proportional istce does to. ‘A this point one as sever alternatives, Fis, one mip tan tne slogan by simpy rlecting the ideal of proportonal jae Second, one might scxpt tat proportional jie hs JAN oF objective, valu, beyond the extent to Which 18 good oF bad for Deople and select the Slogan Tir one might further ret the Slogan, euining that it applis im all cates except here our dee. Stone determine who comes tobe or where propetdona Justice involved. Or foue, one might retain the Slogan by continuing to Insist that injustice always bad for someone Independently of Shy other mapect in which people ae beter oe wore Of iavor the recon alternative. The pipe of proportional ju tice is most tury, and plausibly, interpreted st sn inpesonl ‘principle. asesues outcomes in terms of what people dame, and hot merely in terms of whether people ae afetl for beer oF trae eget of dese), Tetelore, #4 nt surprising Wat the ‘Principle of propordonsl justice candles with » peson-a€ecing Dotition ike the Slogan. More generally as Soon as one rans that, ome things ae inns, of objectively, valable = on aterm tive, tat some things have ‘non-eratie or altimste value=beyond the way they fect being fr beter Or worse, one has caved fut a role for personal principe in the assesment of outcomes Sins porary, to ace the mol signieanee of impersonal an {pts iso vee the hegemonte perton-ateeting view ofthe SCE. foregoing on let e260 that one moves nthe detion of ‘the thd or fourth alternatives ated above, one can 20 Longe {het appeal othe Shogan to undermine any patel Iss ithe shi Sesnative it avoid the charge of beng a hoe i feutesdefense. eds 10 be shown that al hat confit with {he sogen ave not further exception tf and obsiously one ca hot appeal tothe logan In dotng tas without simply Degg the (Question agenat the ideal whose moral sgnieance i at sue Stray, the fourth alternative saves the Slogan only by robbing ito leth In particu, tf always open to the proponent of tr idel past which the Slogan has bee ied to Insist that the seal Is objectively good for peep. o, fr example, thee favanslght siply inset that, Be injustice equality 1 always the for srteone fndepenenuy of any the spect in whch people [Sr beter or woce of Moreover, even when ie slogan’ eter Souls platy argue aginst rach nis, as stl woul not ‘ens setorie!appeas tothe Slogan against any particulate. ‘a nocd such appess bg the quetlon infer of the Slogan, as Ir sematns posible thatthe Slogan should be rejected or further limited In ope LVI, Challenging the Slogan, Part Three: the Mental State Theory ‘The Slogan ip most naturally Interpreted as making 2 claim about hati eleven to 4 sittion’s beng g00d. Covespondingly, 10 Tulip aves te Slogan and she argument Invoking ti neces fy to consier whether any plasbe theories ofthe good support them, 1 ve ttempted this fat eewhere® and Ska not repeat ny eft ese du toe note sore of my results eprding three Candas that have been offered a hee ofthe god: the Met ‘Ste Theo, the Desire Fume Thay, an he Objet List They egin mth the Mental State Theory (MST) ofthe casscl ut tartans According tote theory, only eons states have ntsinse Seo: value, a everthing ee as value or esaue only 10 the entent that promoter postive or neatve conscious sates Tleve MST represents iglcan Inalght of the classical Ut ty, rey, and Lng Down Oition 16. tarans. Indeed, is arguable tht most things only have valve or tdavauein vit of tel elect on conics sates Nevers MST goes to fr in claiming that nlp conscious ster te it Sealy vatsble. Such « positon would unaermine vitually ery ideal special, on sich» sew thete woalé be noting latins tally valuable about fle, equality, eedom, autonomy, tue tury, rgb and toon, Such factors would be tluabe on 0 the fxtent that they promoted postive conilous sates, tothe extent ‘hey promoted negative conscious tates they would be divaaabe ‘Most ugree that EST hat seus shortcomings fall teary of tne ood, Hut many would legree on exec where MST foes wrong, Though ely ignored, the source of thls disagreements Important, To iutate iy Te ut dtinguish between theories of the good segudingsltitere and theots ofthe good repeding ‘uicomes, where the former tll us wht Is Rood of bad for some: ‘one, the inter what makes an tem good or bad. Untortaeatly the presse relationship between theses aot evident, and fale to caeuly dltngush them nas been the soutce of much conf Son, aswell a, perhaps, the Sloga’s appeal Some rcing MST objet to ear henry about outcomes, though not ar theory about sitinteret They think plausible thst some thing can only be good oF bad for someone insofar a I afecs he ensious States, Dut deny tha only consclous states are Ines ‘lly good or bad For example, advocates oF proportional Josce ‘could agree that sinner faving Wetter than saints ed be wore Jor anyone yet insist that ch a stoation might ml Be Bad, be ‘use popotonal ate has value Beyond I Belag Eo for people fn the other hand, some rejecting MST object toe as a theory Shout outcomes Becase they think ie inadequate a5 a theory about Seltnterest. For example, some believe that ffeedom Is good for people beyond is nuence on conscious state. So, they might gird 4 world with higher conscious sate Bat leh freedom a5 tore than ne with lower escious states but mote (eecom, pe ‘ely bau thay belive people are eter af inthe Iter tha ‘he former Naturally, one mIght reject MST for Both reasons MST was Gist fered as a ful theory of the good. Believing that only the quality of conscious ster wa relevant to the good fo both individuals and outeomes, the cassia! uanans saw no nese for diferent theores ofthe good. Repretaiy, many ave uni: ting fllowed tee pathy saamlng the same theory would atice for astiaterest, outcomes, and the fll theory of the good. Thus,convinced of MST imply as fll theory ofthe good, many ‘Stsmised fr without pursing the rouce of shortcomings. hie 4 unforsnate, for I think tha on reflection some would elleve that while MST le not an adequate theory about outcomes fs an Sdeguate theory about slsinnerest. Tat ss arguable thst one ofthe grt snsighs ofthe cleat utlitaran wat aot cal th ‘mot things are only good inseat ae they promote poritve mental Sate, but the further polnt that sothng fe good for someone Le ‘The foregoing isnot only of genera importance, it rectly bears ‘on our cena sue, According to the Sagan one suation cannat ‘be worse than another in even ene rxpect i here i mone fot nom it worse n evn one respect. This imple that one's theory ‘of outcomer mast br a der function of (perhaps, in a terme fuperventent on) of’ theory of elsintest Cleary, However, "0 cet MST as 4 theory abou Senter, whe electing it a6 © ‘heoty about outcomes, Is to deny the ration In question. More pecially, st tse thst rome factor can Be Felevant fo the oodness of outcomes other thin those eleant to What good Fr people. Thus, om the view in question, ome must reject the Slo {ie an the argomenstnvouing Interesting, once one sitinglses between theories about se ‘interest and theories about outcomes, one may wonder Why the Slogan seemed pause inthe fst pace feral while the Qua: tty of people’ ives wil eetsinly playa major role ~ perhaps the ‘mojr fol inthe goodnst of outcomes, why should the corte ‘eory about outcomes be dependent on the covet theory about feltateet in the way the Slogan woul haves elle? Sil fone stinks MST fis a eheory abot setters, one may yet belleve thatthe const theory about outcomes wil in ‘ole an alternative to MST which dots soport te Slogan Let 25 ‘ext consider if» DesieFulllmentTheory yds ths resull TX. Challenging the Slogan, Part Four: the Desire Fulfillment Theory “The Dese-Fulllment Theory (DFT) holds that something wil be ood or bad for someone insoa, and ealy iar at promotes or contravenes she flint of her deses where, rough, the ‘ale of falling an agents desires is ultimately derivable from yay, cy, and th Leng Dow Cetin 243 her dese themselves. So, on this view, ee agent, within cnn limits, the ultimate azbter of her own good. What she deses ‘go for her and, importantly ther desiring Ie which makes (One question about which ther is mich dispute is whether DFT ‘should be evicted only attaching weight to the flea of fn agents seltzearding desns, het esis sbout tow she es nd how her fe progeesses- or Unrest ale attching weight fan agent's otnersepading destes, her dees shout how oe {ave and how ther lives progres, at wel t ny Gees the ay have about the waild pr se. Now, in general, any dese intstey ‘connected with one's deepest projets and commiterents wl count Se actcegarding im the relevant sence. il, whether patel ese seeegeeding ts nt simply a matter of te dees tenth People cn have song desires about others for example that he President be vituous, or weak desires sboettheritelve, er ek ple, that thelr meal be ty. “Te dispute between Restricted and Untetct DFTs is impor ant fortwo tesons. Fst, root may perly le Int fate to Sisuingish between a theony’s plausibly ab = theory about sl Interest or outcomes, and Ke Pausbliy a fll theory of the ood. Second reection on the depute suggests that DIT docs not Suppor the Siogan Consider two eases. Case 115 put by Dar. Me water: Suppose that meet a stranger who has what believed to be 2 {atl disease. My sympathy ts arose, and] stongly went thie Stange tobe cuted. Mach ate, wen Ihave forgotten ov met Ing, te suanger Is cutee. On the Unerrited DeieFlflinent Theory, hs event i food for me ant makes my ego beter. This not plauie, We shoo relet thi these. Cte tf maybe pt a fellows Suppose Jean bas song oter senting dese that crn graves Dbevelitended. And suppose Lir could, with equa ete fll citer ti song dese jens much weaker sleeping dese for some suntan ol ASuming Liz had no duty to do theater, ost would age that other dung egal She were going fo Sl {ne ofthe dene, It would e better to fall the stong oneeecng on Cae may ae dawn to the concson tht 2 Re Tired BET move ploue than tn Unentted one. Reectng anne I mony red to te oponte conan Tee 8 Sh cement fray so bah potions bu ts at nate tn oo oe, oveooee ‘ove ists tha an Unteatcted FT laws aso shecy sont re Cae I snes at 8 Reed DET fmpesse or thry ob eum. Tgeer, then, Cie and {Top hat nether? heise nv an Unrest IT lable Til hry of he gon Bat hs des or snow teach Should Sete oot ot hand emalns pole hat Rested DFT {Spies theory abo setter an Unetted DFT 6 uate oss theory about eucomes, ad wether 5 more Pas Bethan the other npr vk Unvented DF wl count cessn things 4 ood of bad with we oot hk re god bar angen. Tis shows we Th erber reer the Unset DF eens theory about Suncom owes te Sogn Stary, «Reseed DET fal fo Shunt onde peopl cers cos weep god. TA shows ‘Pen eee the Reed Breen 2 her aboot Sesto ele the Slop, Ths, once one gets at about he ren and'meakgeter oe eo ems one estat nether 9 Soineted or Unvented DFT wt play suppor the Slxan. Shoe aed tht nether» Retted nor an Unrest DFT ve rapport te Sop tat me est wget hat even If ome Trnon' SDF mee bat inate prove te, an spor The Sogn it woud wet suppor the mumerous spent hat I whe the Sonam ‘ty psu vton of DFT one wll want coun a good fpesomeone te sasnton of tore dese intial connected Sonne deepest pojes and commisnets follows hat on DFT The nul be good ston treo edom, sical, ‘Mtonomy, and fo on Aer tov count bog Gomme) peoples "Criae pin Nove’ Wk Chamberlin example, fom econ tv on DT might be te hat Charen’ ceing 4 Iino store culm be bas tere was no one for whom I Tastnese, theif chase would not be fle. As tong a thee WE peopt fx wom In vance of eumty among the eee Et Prosesandserminens hee ail e Someone for whom ‘he Stanton Im gunn emo ote othe contaveng of qu, Py, od he Leng Dan Objection 1 tual eleva dears ene, on DE, the Slogan would not support the Kind of portion Novick pat forward. Similar remarks Would ‘ppl to each ofthe postions nated ln section 1V. One must look tlw for postion suporing bth the Sogn an he argument Invoking te X. Challenging the Slogan, Part Five: the Objective List Theory Let me next comment on the Oblective List Theory (OLD. As 3 Theory about selntret, OL would hold that some things ae ood or Bad for people independently of the qual of thet con {Sous tts oe the allimeat of tel deter. Smty, 3 eor7 Shout outcomes, OLT mould hla that some things are inteaslaly food or bad= hal by ake an outcome good bad ~ indepen eo of the quality of people's conscious sates or the flllment Levine begin by dlscuming OLT a8 a theory sbout outeomes specie, et me sgn est once ane moves 1 OLT a theory ‘bout outeomes, thee sets To be litle Teson to Be wedded to the Slogan ‘Once we secogoie that some things ate intrintaly valuable Independentiy of people's desis or conscious states It seems an ‘pen queton what te fll ange of objective values would in ‘oie tegiding tei ature content, oration to sentert beings. “Tnough presumably there wil be rome exental Connection te ttven our ntare and the Goundarier of moral Yalue, why must ‘rome of benefits fr either us or oes? Why can’ the bounsies ‘fhe objectively goad extend beyond what Is good for someone = ‘eshap focusing on au capac fo lead» moray god ie, 2 wel ron our capacity to have» prenialy good le? "Yo be sre, an Objective Lt for outcores would Include ay faces squrded t good on ou theoy about sleet. Sl, thee {ems to be plenty of fom for our Objective List about outcomes te include some factors, ke certain moral eas, whose ataln ‘ment Is not necesaly good for anyone Importantly, one migh preserve the Slogan by adopting an Ob- jectne Lt Tory about elfinteret and Inlolng on hove ma [Seals to whlch people ae committed. Spec, ath 2 broad {cough Objecve List Theory, any cae im whieh one outcome Is ‘etter or worse than another in any sespect wil aso be a eae Innich there i someone for whom that outcome ie beter or worse sive he Slogan only by sobbing It of Hs tet Ih patel 1 fn open querton what factors ot Meals yl appear om the comet ‘Objective List aboot sefintvest~ as h surely ut be given the pretense of argument abot sich oer one cannot appeal "0 fhe Sloan to undermine any patel postions. Alter al Yo 30 {vould simpy beg the queton agent whether the positions In ‘question belong on the eoweet Objective Lst Theoty about sl Ihteres. Thus, eves ifthe Slogan could be defended pier a sary broad Objective ist Theory about sf lnterest, would nol yet ‘One might simply insist tht the Slogan must be ig, s0 that ny teas that ate no intisially good fr anyone must be te fected. But fo d0 £0 Would probabiy be wrong and ceraily be ‘tawatante. Such an assertion begs the quttions that most need ‘arssing. Instead of advancing the level of moval argument it ‘it of debate smere st neds to begin. In Sum, uns Sgnieant toning about the astute and founcavon ofthe correct Obj tive Uns eabishes otherwise, arguments sed on sheers appeal to the Slogan should be rjc ‘nave duel» Mental Sate Theory, a Dest ulent Theory and an Objective List Theory. Our considerations suggest that once ‘one distinglies beeen theories about se-inteest and theaies ‘Tout tenes there ston Yo cout the Shgan ana the sgumen| fnvoting it Conespondingly, heels eson forest the Leveling Down Objection, insofar at It purpors to establish that-non Instumentlegltaanem lan Sard we that mut be ete, XL. Broome’s objection and a response 4 hs interesting and important book, Weihine Gants, John Broome ‘sents and defends the following postion ‘he ping of personal seo. (2) Two akeratives ate equally ood I they a equll good foreach petson. And ©) It one temative Isat lest a8 good a8 another for everyone and de nity ever for someone, beter ‘The principe of petona god is sia to the Slogan, and Sroome rightly recognies thet my arguments agaist the Slogan alo cha yy, roy, and he aang Do Otin 147 lenge the principe of persona! good. Not srpuisingly, then, Broome considers and reject my hry agunent ago te Sogn. Ee us ‘onset the adequacy of Broome’s response ‘Broome’ tage ay saints and sneer example, preented in section Vi. Broome reese ths example as one whee the a are intally beter of than the sinners but then the condition the sinner improves whist the condition of the slat remain the Same’ #* He then writer: “Suppose the saners end up Deer of ‘an the sunt Temln suse change may be bad even thou 111s bad for no-one I agie the change may be bad far i | think that is Because His id forthe sate The saints ceseve ‘ete than the staners, 2 they face worse they are sueing am Snjosice. To ser an injustice bad Yor you. So although ss the saints may have seemed no worse of, they ace actully wore ‘fin this ess obvious way. Tne harm of nfstice done them may ‘make the change worse on Balance,” find this response unconvincog. Let me note several retons for this ust, suppose the ssn ate buy unaware othe so neve enstence. They aze in one heaven, the sinners ia another fen beter, one, OF suppose the sain den’ mind the snes Situnon. They mag even be clined and happy foe the sinner, without the sighs age of esousy, sept, or rere. The te afterall, sunt In such creumstance, {revit doubt th {he Slats are sufering an Injustice ora heed by the Insti ‘ovat in any other contental way thelr lives are actully move of fue to their work's injustice. But tis doesnot lesen the sign ‘ance of thet wos injustice, othe extent to which Bie worse than A reprding justin “To asume mati inj iba ene mst be someone fer whom ‘ts bad, Is to confate one's theory ofthe good about etme = ‘which els what makes an outcome good or bad = wih one theo) ‘tthe good abou finns which tells wha good o bd for Indiviuas. Like the Slogen, room's principle operon 500d serves. asa Procustean be, Sting the goodness of outcome to ‘what good for inaviduals. So, insofar 33 factor cortbutes to Sn cutcome'sgoodnes, there ‘must fst be Indie fot who that factor isto the same extent, good. Bat I see 0 reson 10 believe this Hven fone belleves, a 1 40 hat “soecsarent the proper ebjecs of moral concer, individuals in societies ae ™ one must recognize that outcomes o societs, ae ot individuals, In ‘aon, concerns about naiidle extend beyond concerns abot68 Lary Tomi how well they fare, of what beer oF worse fr them. Conte {undingy, the teevan factors for jogging whether an outcome fe Deter or morse fer tom those for jdging whether a india 50,1 deny Broome’ claim that If 8 injustice bad, sere most ‘ye someone for wom Wi bd an, im parla, hat es bad for ‘he sine However suppose we grant that Insie i Dad foe the {nts Would tis be enough to suppodt oor udgment about the feltve meres ofA 308 8? In describing my example, Broome ssumed that in moving fom ‘onstant. Suppase we do't make thet asumplon. Specially 5 ‘ome that ae the sane" conltions prove, zo do the str, 50 that infact the vants would be Deter fn B an io, were ‘ot for the tnjustice they safer doe tothe ane disproportionate {Bins So, imagine Wat eciftely represents the sams and ret" levels taking fll account of both the improvement in the worsening ofthe sins conditions due tothe injustice they sue ftom te sinners” dsproportonate gins ‘Now what should we say about A and 8? On the principle of penonal good, we mst now conclde at Bis better Wan A sce, Dy hypothesis, B 8 now as least as good 26 A fr the sams, and ‘ednitey beter forthe snes. Shoui we Accept thls contaion? Broome might. He might ins that having sendy taken account lite vere efets of iniunice on the salts, ov (udgmentssbout ‘Nand should be guided by the pencil of personal god. Moov, ‘he might clin, with some pausbiiy, hat any temptation fo for ‘over Bon grounds of ase must note an et double counting, ff Bs injustice, Nevertheless, Ite hard eeconeiing thee clsimt ‘wth the view that Bs Sint ynuiney sur injustice 0 tat as ert ofthe harm done them they are now actualy worse of than the sinners ft the Sects genunely are worse of than the Sinner, then it seems advocates f proportional fusice can, and Should sick to thet ginal contention hat B i wore than A Sanert should ot fare better than ssn. So. I don think Boome’ vesponse removes my examples sting. Whether oF ot injustice Is bd for those who "suerte Injustice, ‘he principle of proportions justice seams #0 Suppor fuumnets Incompatie with the principle of personal good. OF couse, Boome right urge that we revise or dispenie with proportional juste. pty, rey, amd Lins Down Ot 248 But for one, nd easier to eect the principle of pesonsl good, than the principle of proportional fusice, Bren if Bs beter fot some and wort fo no one tS not beter than A. An outcome there mass murderers fare Better tha sant snot beter than 4 ‘Suteone where saints and sinners al et what they dese” Net consider 2 vataon ofthe saints and sinners cee, where there are no saints, only sinners ™ tn New A, the sinacrs get what they deserve tn New 8 the sinners fare even beter than they oud Inve deserved to, had they bees stats Many wold ape tha fone ripest» tearing [urice = Neve Bis wart than Nev A ince there Isat anyone bees sinner, Hf tece must be someone for ‘shor New Bs injustie bad, must be bad forthe sinners he Selves This is implausible. think New Bs injustice is Ba, but ot Breese I is bad forthe sinners to spend etenty st sunly level, rather than at tele vastly lower deserved level Broome ogres that New Bis not wore forthe sinners than New ‘A. Bot he denies that this tls agaist the prsciple of personal 00d. Tiss becnse, scoring t Broome ‘nthe example with Dut sents, no one sues an injustice For Broome, the ke ste here ix “how retbutiveJulce works, It deteriines abseliely ow a person ought to fre on grounds of dese, then Termin Wold be right But I ehink k determines how a petton ought 12 fate relative to ofr people... sianes should be worse of than Sain, bat retbitve ustice does not determine how well of tach ‘foup should be absolutely" To Broome, 8 wold of sts who fore pooly due to natural conditions may not bea sey good oe but (tis not uns. ‘Siiaey” Broome wees, Ina word contin Ing only sinners, 1 See no snjstice Hehe aerate well. Broome is tiaht that ebive [ustie matter, thea the prin ‘ipl of persona god requtes that Il be understood elatively rather ‘hoy absolutely. But I deny that we should choot beeen rl tine coneepton and a absolute one. To the contray I bleve retibtivelosce icles bth stlaive end an absolute compo. ‘ent Let me defend ths potion, beginning with an example ta Supposs «veative component. Consider Diagram & Ih A, the suis teetve what they ‘deter’ the sinneis mich rote than they deseve. In, both the sunt andthe sinner e- ‘ive more than they deserve ut the sent feceive move tha the Sinner m proportion to howe much beter they ved thei lives If Sit we cazed about was absolute jst, then we should pte Ato B. Bot although tome src seabutvits might rank A Better than1, most would not. As not previous, surely most retsibutiists trout lodge that, all things Cosiere, 8, a word where sn [ire proportionally better than sinner, more us than A 3 woud Ivete mast murderers fave better tha sss, Such consdsations support Broome’ clam that stbutive [us tice i comeenmed with hows person ought fo fre late 0 thet people sinners shouldbe worse of tha suits Hower, sch omigcatfons do not show retburve sce Is only concerned twin telative wellbeing, rather da absolute wellbeing "To see the cent of etutve fries absolute component, onside ts fle in ews about the futice of punishment. Kant oreample, believer that "the sght of etalon fu tan) {ste only pane which, can deSnteyasgn both the guaniy fd gualy of ust penalty Ths pulnepe I ost the old bil ‘n inuneton to-retun lke for Ih, "an eye fr an eye, 290 foot for toth/ and Kat csi ft determines oth the mode tnd measure of pusishatent or Kart, pnishing the innocent twos unos, Moveovet, It 9 merely that murderers shoul be unlined move than thieves, whe should be puntshed mere than Slander eather It ir tha “f you shinee another, you sander Yourely Hf you steal fromm anothey, you steal wom yours ..- It You lil other, you Kl yoursele Thus for Kan, punishments {ertt the crime, andthe B rt be abslute, not feltive i. cclostey aso elees tht punishing he Innocent 1 une est ad nt that he key fo the ory of punishment tobe Found Ia tetibutive thee, namely te tony that ei should be ‘dobuted scoring dsr, and thatthe wus deserve to sue!” pay, ray and he Lting Dow Octo St In adion, for McCloskey, juste eguites that ‘punehment must fot be excessive the poson punished [must have) deserved to be punied 31 he wat puntned Sm, WD. Ross contends hs we fel cen hat sunt hat very Severe penalties should ‘be esxed to very slghtoferses [in fat the jury tobe ined fon the offender tools be not mach seater han that whieh e has Intictes on another. dealt shouts be no grate ‘The sem views thatthe guilty should be punished, that the in rnocent should not and tht punishment snould not be exces bit etecr an aioe component of reubulive justice. On Breoz’s ve a long as decent eizens ate proportionately better of than vicious thus, we should be completely inlferent, egading fu: Tie, betneen whether everybody fends gent ves, everybody leads tretched ies, or Gecentclzens ead food ives while tgs lead poo: lives, I claim we sre not Indigent beween these alten foes, nor shoulé we be. Rearing ase, the fst two alernatives be both worse than he thd Insofar a6 we eae about setibuive Isic, decent citizens snould faze well abd tgs Poot T conclude that seutbutive justice contains an important abso lute component." Thus, re mus howe between rebate fastice ‘nd the prsile of pertonal good. Brome Baas he nave appeal tthe principe [of personal good) gener than the Inte ap- peal ofthe fouote) examples [tt] My nfllons go the exer tay. justce is relevant to asesng outcomes In ways that are not fully ecb fo what fs good or bad for individuals. The same tay be true of oer ideal, such 4 equally. XI, Priositarianism, eg enemy jarlanism, and a common ‘As indlested previousty, any who favor wanes fom beter. £9 ‘mosealt ae atcied to poouaianism a1 8 ay of avoiding the Tevlling Down Objection. However, Ingmar Denson tas egued that bile, ssely speaking, prlontavianism vous the Leveling Down Objection, rans sou! of the pesonallecting spit nat tly aifodated with the Levelling Down Objection Altiough 1 fm not completely sate what to make of Person’ guest, 1 fneeting ane ha important implctions ay be reformulated tnd tummarzed 3 follows ‘hr fen, om instramentalegltransm confit withthe Slo gon, which holds that one situation cannot be worse (or beter)SE] ie ‘than another I there 9 ane for whom I worse (r bette) A ovolay ofthe Slogan Sioga: Ione station i wee (or bette) than another, there must be someone for whom I 5 wowe (or bette. Both the Slogan and Slogan* express promafting ews, second ing to which the goodness of outcomes i sessed In ei of he ntent to hich the people In those outcomes are afead for be fer or mone. Gocespencingy, the spit ofthe Slogan and Siogan® {ho suppete the fllowing positon Lmprotmert the extent t0 which 2 change improves a station tml be 9 civect function ofthe extent which individuals Im That situation ave (olecvely)Dewfite bythe change (where atm count a negative benefits for the purposes of agyreE> toms, for one station to be improved more by change th nother situation, the member: ofthe ist stunton mus, col Tecively, benefit ore from is change, thon the members ofthe Seond situation Benes, collectively, fom Ks change. Ingulvely, Improvement expieses 2 pesonafctng vew that ‘changes Improve an outcome omy to the extent that they benef prop in that outcome = the bec the change ae for people the [eter the Improvement in the outcome, “The preceding sgt that thor whe ate attracted fo the Slogan shoul ao be aracted to Slogane and Improvernent, and vce vera Silay, those who reject the Slogan shoul aso elect Slogan fnd Improvement, and vice vers, ly, ey, onl te Ling Down One 158 Importantly, most prontarans wil reject Improvement. Given the choice betwee beneiting a woseaH petson or beneiting 2 beterot person to the eae tame estes hey favor benedtng Phe woof peton. Moreover, mom prortarans believe, rly {eink thot the outcome where the wore pecion i Bente sw Beter ‘utcome than the outcome where the Beite-of person i silty ‘benefited. So, consider Diagram 7 ‘Suppose one could tansfom A foto C, by benefitting N's beter ‘of a cotain apeunt, or B into, by benesting B's worse-o8 the frat tame amount Pltasans are committed to he view that they should bring about D, ees tnan C. Furthermore, most Proiaians would hold that Dis a better outcome than C** Bit Ey nyporness B's worwe-of do mot benefit more inthe change 10 Dy than Ns better-of would inthe change to C. Each group woul be benefited to the exact same extent. Thu, according to improve tent, there would be no renin to favor D over. ‘ar indleste, mos pronitaians woul reject Improvereat. They ‘mare, along with proponents of proportional justice and non Instrumental eaitaiantm, commitment to an impersonal poop thin evaluates outcomes ia ways that are ot fll reducible To Ivhat is good or bad for individu. Thos, prontatans reject he Hin of peson-fectng reasoning that undeties Improvement, Sl |unt, and the Slogan. Covespondingy, i 82 mistake to think Prositarlanism is much peferabe to non-Instromental egalitarian fem because It avolde the Levelling Down Objection. AeNovgh Priortaianism doer old the Leveling Down Objection, and may be plaulble In Is own ght, mow protarans reject the person ectng spit astral axocated with the Leveling Down Objection. Ino doing, they open up the possibilty that ane situation could be worse (or Better) than another in some respec, even If tere ro one for whom i 5 wate (r better. One respect In Weh i git be worse interme of equity. “ihe picceding considerations do not directly support non lastrumental egaliteraniom, But they suggest that insofar as personsaecting inwtions re at Ise, non-insramenta alas nm and prortaraniem have similar tun Consequerty they foggest though do not prove, that whatever eesons one ight have for endorsing priertaranism or non-inseumenta egatrian- fem, st woul be a state to favor the former aver the ater because bf the peron-afeting spt natualy sssoclted withthe Leve ling Down Objection254 tary Temkin XI, Summary and conclusion any who thnk of themselves plas ae in fat poaans igre tat a mite fo conte posture, ih {QuuMlaam. We prortadansm i pave a+ veson of Teeien epntaaniny it eno plese a version. of non ream equtanunisn Potro expose seca cone (eens that wl often supp wants for Bee CO owl bre bot concred wih ety Fr Sete tat only tsramentl egitim is pause sgt many thnk tat te Leveling Down Objection pro- ae rnd ihtaion of nominate elites. Ths ny shes tot ele Te Leng Down Oeon Tae pea ape bt es tary te crushing, cones, ob afte wide assumed tobe {claimed hat the Leveling Down ‘Secon deves much oe power retrial fre fom the eeseee chile the Slogan expresses & penoraecting lew tat sen nett pase sould be nected. The slogan cones tray ed about de Nonicenty Probe, is incompatle oats of peoprsona te and moe general, res cece weet vamp impersonal metal pales I eSesing ce ee eecogan testa ration tween the goodness of ease oa te goounets of osteo ha sn s¥ppored PY sean moa the goo pesca, the logan a6 ONE ae erator night hs bon invoke are not sported Uy 2 Seeseaic cry, Desteelllment Theory, or 2 Objective Lise Teor of the good Ty sxc that most proraran cept an mpeional view eet the slop puromadeng ssh. Corespond sea cenen gn thatthe Lveing Down Oneton dives much iat agin the Slogan, poraans, a well x mons ote ann shoul nd the Leveling Down Objection 1s {ore then ts commoniy taken t Be ee eta acept my canes about the Slogan, bat stl nd ee aiee bon Objection ernhog ans nonsstuea ine nen 1 dont undewtand this postion. Hone situation SUE oie than notes ino espe thee was no one ces ns wens i any respect hen the Leveling Down nee peaks be competing Buri one Staton cul be worse Serene one repel even there ms noone oF whom Saracen any esac then the Leveling Dows Objection does pul, ty nd te Leng Dow Oton 188 ligle more than point out an implication of non-astrumental tpalitatanim that one my oF may not nd unpalatable The Bon Irstmentl egalitarian cans equality valuable lh even if there leno one for whom Its ood. The Leveling Down Obj: tion's peoponent inastently dente this. But, howevee hear, 2 Insstent denial hay consttates am argument, rave leis + cus Ing one Tanti un for some to be werse of than others uough faut oftheir own? ts Te uae for some tobe bling, wile otert fie not? And ket unftnes ba? These question, posed etary, “xprest the fundhmental came ofthe nonsastrementl egalitarian ‘Once one reece the Slogan, se Ihave argued one shoul thete litle reason to formake such eats in the face of the Leveling Down Obteton But, the antiegalitaran wil incredulously at, Ura think there i some respect in which world whete only some ae blind In'worse thon one where all ae? Yes. Does this mean 1 think it Scil’be bert we nde everyone? No Egat 1 ta ‘Advoctes of the Leveling Down Obfecton are mesmerized by ‘une equality’ tebe impletons. But egusiy $6 ot te only ea that would If exessvly pursue, have Implwsible of even terble implications The sume Is tue of justice, uty, feedom, tnd probably every other ideal. Recall ants view tat ustice be ‘done though the heavens shoul fal! Do we realy tsk, with ans that would be wrong to fel imprison an Senocent man fav even five minutes I hat were nectsary#o av # milion i ‘ocen vs? Or conser the pine of wily, wich would gure Ut toute an innocent person if only enough people had thelr lives improved bythe tnlst of amounts because of out ation. Or finaly, consider the lmptetlons of unfettered feedom to ack as fe wants without government inerferene, a long one doesn't Inter withthe rights of Ibex of other. Such a pineple might low complet neler ofthe least forunat, even fegardng bsie feces ich 8 food, clothing, shelter, nd nenthene. Such Considerations do not show that atic, wity, and freedom shold be teected moral Weal, only that morality is complex “the main lesan of the Leveling Down Objection fs that we sould be plraiste about moray. Ealteians have lng recognized, and cept, this Ison. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for ‘helt opponent.186 tary Temkin Notes aca aaa cg sian ibe cnacay Certara Seca owas » ELSE 2 a etn ay ‘it iteduced ths teminoly i be wapblnes mans “On Speer caeceed ot oe ee 2 NEE IE Ben tamer Leeling bow Obfetion sume Jettion Vhs the cave that repesens the most power objection Sisco ee ran atest seers Beli ep any tte OSE reac Beretta Sra cet tn See ete emseumanee Sess ieee Sie amma ne ewes TE eset foe tte ot en 1 4 Se aeicesine 9b era Soe Ee eee nae ay i 's the paticula comelt ieee prema etn Hee haarce antnattee Se h ian aera ces eran SSR SSSR Ae MA cr yan, iy, onthe Lvling Down Obetion 157 Sythe gh, ea ea eo te gee kt Sopry a, and mot Imporaly, ect my ae th Sabie the ee of Cota neacion 1) aa thee isi ele a's oe He gmae een {Poor tore pata t fnten tat ef uaa cs ‘utenstuaens wheres ase ind = pomp Secane ech ‘Mone evyenes onan amehow cane at Sn nt mete et ‘he pon fai) ae guy = tee ay sl bea tons he pny hr aes an sre exe ne otal oan trom te Wem i ea ‘hah ois thatthe leveling down lection tren wnonetons| ‘onsramenteataranfm, bu lesee utah ee cond mention the foe pions, Ot shal Rot pure them ‘yer taught repre enor posans theron thin’the leveling down objector ann should Be eee more tree icing, ch comin mig iv on on eno sing Unteay fae 90 tps the view a follows: Wf a catome te woe fot 20 oe it ‘aonol be any ay wore haunt ey pe) pe ie {he volume). The hn a vew iets extent eaten put tou ot sone ad Pr Ont Unveiy Pre1988) ja on {cnet Hag of ew in is ponetng sr tani, ‘ols of epuason ont, 197 pp. 62-8 ‘etl Rows lena version of he dence pepe aos some inset Saute pee ee Rat Soria te, te ong tem erpecntons fhe lt orate ou Seay Ma es Coat Mae How ay pans the baer sna enor scompamee yeas To ‘otra bt to oat anon eampie moe te Sogo hs bees {peso nmaly ese te operon tat inno te beer hig ony be prs they tho bene he oreed, ‘tate te” on Ui Ont Bact 1970) p16 Sn dm en cay pyr Nati {ped to the Sogn in peeing Me ecm: iy clam ingly {Hae meh oie cet dere frm he Span y seg the et 12 my euay (Onin‘etm ae logs appa Cones hou aw sou No Sarl ut re ae fnes Coumbers we the See a a Cn the vont ee ‘Sang bccn Cin na as wea rs sr yen lange ae eS rnc ‘otking wrong with oasy people choonng to pve twenty A¥e cents i ved som he Sopa Tee ay the plc asm that Sap fe le compoting. Serena api to several othe Fae urx Ct me ws 2659 (ep ‘Seta ematons: Fetes Pohens’ tg & Pb Ara Teal ec fot Sine { heed he nee Aiton Pardon fom tren i anges abn tees Pneion pe ‘Pinte nega Pe samt iil he ong a, crane everyone in hes in Avon st aro off MSs lane atte eae gp ot pone te hes Seta nt ty tom ane 8 foro, see te ve a wrt igo fey ola ext rer ce Nr ie ane aad mon of wy enn "mee, Fat aca he was mot zeigt Se ‘Sim st mhotere Pus mew os amp 4 cnn TES worm | have eicuned seed iy, ety, and he Lvling Doe Otion 159 1 i nd ra a bed Sua Hopi (ante 15 One mig tk ht the Spon cule be wd gant dont ‘Sige ice emg na ity x a we at ‘ant goodness of eazones Bat het aie HM: Deelogss ‘na fat cue‘ aor the same promoting the bs poses me, bt ot deonsopse weal hl tat sing mn 1 bad SEE eg et nome we oe a ed wore Jomemns ext consis tc whe Being one? meso ng SE oer Ee ey ete Sg once ah ‘hos te Slope mig te ved fo undermine te cin a bre Tues rote sting iy mong isha ee es ‘Shchng won but ae stl ndepndetiy ofthe ensegees ‘rete suc spams inehed apt Seong neg tilt mee Sn a ao ones ees {ives there ely mat be someone fo nom the prom Deshi et ing mil be mos peeps the eta! Seat doing the ation, Sion wg ie tea ns te oaont i oe Ft IEEE Soee IA ny oe Se apa ht say Rd ‘Aone oss tht ietive fo olay wale Ima stot ‘peoone th the eo mor oy a is ‘rangi mut appow ta there m0 pect Mle thee or ‘aap poy weed eee forthe pues dy te sel er ety tren cing win nod, fotos Oxford Usivrty Pres, 184), e365, 389 19 Hse wow fo te sans ty hypothe faa wel in Ba in ‘ily ueawne of how the sane ae Teng tho fey ae flys ti saponin may be uncer fae Oa ah Slo af icin pe i cb ae, ting 11 when ther no ote fr wor B mane) 2 Sonn Bose atest ch pon a eins Gnt Oo: aer SE cecum reco oe meet see thearacra ee ened feanlcats uber ie rat ethers ee rms ree Eiri a nica as ae Soe ane Ti cots 18 Be apy of Ley, am W- Hee abt. Sdn gp ca tenes Gee tons Pune ite dt oe xt. 1088 Fn Mon sntitan Apron Rent, 1968, pp. 29-8 ip n Pato pp se. Fle 9.13%, xcept toe The Rg and te Go (Oxon: hat retibue fie cs an abst component oy at eine IRS lean ayo ces eh ‘iar een dicusing the ‘otion of rebut justice tn ts cae fem poweay pen oa ae ‘ce td neni bok ese oh ett erokasin tow yang ny nen sot Son an he ‘Rincpie of penonal goou In parte, many Momene peopie may yay, Prey, alte Lvlig Dom Obeton 68 ERaaunaren a ee cor ote Tecioe se means aenag tan Ey ama te marae tbat poe, aa ue enugh fo rnene otoeae et see td Te pce ona gan we {Egaltanatsm vt. the Poort View" and ‘Leveling Down aad the Dis Since dante ponte oul ery hie calm. 0 ie it ee he rel ae ante beat rans muy deny tat sy oteomes an be mes ngly ged ‘beter or moe tan then. Aon soe may Pld uch» pase, Pocntaraisn 1 genal odvee a an ema o epitrsn: ptt nat a viva so meng eucomes