Chapter 4

Brief egalitarianism background

1. Egalitarianism vs. sufficientism. The basic idea of egalitarianism to take equality of persons as a default position. Traditionally this is both with respect to political rights and social and economic advantages. For instance, in his [Williams1962aa], Williams holds that if an inequality is permissible, then there ought be a relevant, socially operative reason for it. An example of irrelevant reason is: the rich get medical care and the poor don’t because the rich are rich and the poor are poor. An Example of non- socially operative reason is: the rich get medical care and the poor don’t because while the poor have the right to medical care, they lack the means. But Williams would think that, for instance, some disparities in wealth are permissible because e.g. modern economies need some modicum of this to function. A view entirely opposed to egalitarianism is that of Frankfurt’s sufficientism [Frankfurt1987aa]. As the name suggests, he thinks that all that is important is that people have enough of primary goods like income and health care. On his view, it would be okay if the rich were getting different health care than the poor, so long as everyone was getting enough.

2. Rawls and the difference principle. Perhaps the most famous egalitarian is John Rawls, whose book A Theory of Justice [Rawls1971aa] is cited more than anyone else in this area. He had two main principles:

The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that the primary goods of the least well-off are maximized.

16 4. Brief egalitarianism background 17

Equality of opportunity: “those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system, that is, irrespective of the income class into which they were born” ([Rawls1971aa] p. 73). In the the first principle, a “primary good” is “things which it is supposed a rational man wants whatever else he wants [. . . ] rights, liberties, and opportunities, and income and wealth” ([Rawls1971aa] p. 79). Rawls thinks that these two principles are justified by “the original position”: the basic idea is that if we think of ourselves as debating what kind of political system we would want to live in (not knowing what particular stations in life we would occupy and not knowing what exactly our talents or family background is), then we would choose his principles over other competing principles.

3. Anderson’s egalitarianism. Here is Anderson’s preferred characteriza- tion of egalitarianism: “To be an egalitarian is to commend and promote a society in which its members interact as equals”. Contrasted to hierarchies of authority, esteem, and standing ([Anderson2017aa] p. 3), the following is Anderson’s model: [. . . ] in market exchanges with the butcher, the brewer, and the baker, each party’s interests have standing in the eyes of the other. Each party expresses this recog- nition by appealing to the other’s interests as a reason for him to accept the exchange. The buyer is not an inferior, begging for favor [as in a hierarchy of esteem]. Equally importantly, the buyer is not a superior who is entitled to simply order the butcher, the brewer, or the baker to hand over the fruits of his labor [as in a hi- erarchy of authority]. Buyers must address themselves to the other’s interests. The parties each undertake the exchange with their dignity, their standing, and their personal independence affirmed by the other. This is a model of social relations between free and equal per- sons ([Anderson2017aa] p. 4). Hence, for Anderson, “Egalitarianism, more fundamentally, is about dis- mantling or taming social hierarchy” ([Anderson2017aa] p. 8). Bibliography

[Arya2013aa] Shweta Arya, Catherine Eckel, and Colin Wichman. Anatomy of the credit score. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95:175–185, 2013. [Anderson2017aa] Elizabeth Anderson. Private Government: How Employers Rules Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It). Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, 2017. [Annas2015aa] Julia Annas. Applying virtue to ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 32(1):1–14, 2015. [Aristotle1999aa] Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett, Indianapolis, second edition, 1999. [Bagnall2014aa] John Bagnall, David Bounie, Kim P Huynh, Anneke Kosse, To- bias Schmidt, Scott D Schuh, and Helmut Stix. Consumer cash us- age: A cross-country comparison with payment diary survey data. 2014. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid = 2796990. [Bennett2003aa] Leonard A. Bennett. Testimony before subcommittee on financial insti- tutions and consumer credit of the committee on financial services. June 4, 2003. https://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/060403lb.pdf, 2003. [Baron1997aa] Marcia W. Baron, Philip Pettit, and Michael Slote. Three methods of ethics: A debate. Blackwell, Malden, 1997. [CFA2002aa] National Credit Reporting Association Consumer Federation of America. Credit Score Accuracy and Implications for Consumers. 2002. [Medine2014ab] Elisebeth Collins Cook James Dempsey David Medine, Rachel Brand and Patricia Wald. Report on the surveillance program operated pursuant to section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. https://www.pclob.gov/library/702-report.pdf, 2014. [Doris1998aa] John M Doris. Persons, situations, and virtue ethics. Nous, 32(4):504–530, 1998. [Fidler2015aa] David P Fidler. The Snowden Reader. Indiana University Press, 2015. [Forsyth20155aa] Bart Forsyth. Banning bulk: Passage of the usa freedom act and ending bulk collection. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 72:1307, 2015. [Frankfurt1987aa] Harry Frankfurt. Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics, 98(1):21–43, 1987.

18 Bibliography 19

[Hartman2013aa] Edwin Hartman. The virtue approach to business ethics. In Daniel C. Russell, editor, The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics, pages 240–264. Cambridge University Press, 2013. [Hendricks2004aa] Evan Hendricks. Credit Scores & Credit Reports: How the System Re- ally Works, what You Can Do. Privacy Times, 2004. [Herman1984] Barbara Herman. Mutual aid and respect for persons. Ethics, 94(4):577– 602, 1984. [Hill-Jr.1980] Thomas E. Hill Jr. Humanity as an end in itself. Ethics, 91(1):84–90, 1980. [Hursthouse2014aa] Rosalind Hursthouse. Virtue theory. In Hugh LaFollette, editor, Ethics in practice: an anthology, pages 45–55. Blackwell, Malden, third edi- tion, 2014. [Jappelli2003aa] Tulli Jappelli and Marco Pagano. Information sharing in credit markets: The european experience. In Margaret J Miller, editor, Credit reporting systems and the international economy, pages 81–114. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003. [Kant1996] Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In Practical Phi- losophy, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, pages 37–108. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. [Landau2013aa] Susan Landau. Making sense from snowden: What’s significant in the nsa surveillance revelations. IEEE Security & Privacy, 11(4):54–63, 2013. [Landau2014aa] Susan Landau. Highlights from making sense of snowden, part ii: What’s significant in the nsa revelations. IEEE Security & Privacy, 12(1):62–64, 2014. [Lynch2017aa] Caroline Lynch and Lara Flint. The usa freedom act turns two. Lawfare, Friday, June 2, 2017. https://www.lawfareblog.com/usa-freedom-act-turns- two, 2017. [Mill1991] John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism. In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol- ume 10, pages 203–59. Routledge, London, 1991. [McNaughton2014aa] David McNaugton and Piers Rawling. Deontology. In Hugh LaFol- lette, editor, Ethics in practice: an anthology, pages 45–55. Blackwell, Malden, third edition, 2014. [Rawls1971aa] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971. [Scanlon1982] T.M. Scanlon. Contractualism and Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism and Beyond, pages 103–128. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982. [Sidgwick1981aa] Henry Sidgwick. The Methods of Ethics. Hackett, Indianapolis, 1981. [Solove2017aa] Daniel J. Solove. A brief history of information privacy law. In Kristen J. Mathews, editor, Proskauer on Privacy: A Guide to Privacy and Data Security Law in the Information Age, pages 1–51. Practising Law Institute, 2017. [Solove2015aa] Daniel Solove and Paul M Schwartz. Privacy Law Fundamentals. Interna- tional Association of Privacy Professionals, 2015. [Straka2000aa] John W Straka. A shift in the mortgage landscape: The 1990s move to automated credit evaluations. Journal of Housing Research, pages 207–232, 2000. [Vallentyne2014aa] Peter Vallentyne. Consequentialism. In Hugh LaFollette, editor, Ethics in practice: an anthology, pages 22–30. Blackwell, Malden, third edition, 2014. [Williams1962aa] Bernard Williams. The idea of equality. In Philosophy, Politics and So- ciety, pages 110–131. Blackwell, Oxford, 1962.