Element contents
Series: Elements in Ethics
Prioritarianism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 May 2022
Summary
Prioritarianism holds that improvements in someone's life (gains in well-being) are morally more valuable, the worse off the person would otherwise be. The doctrine is impartial, holding that a gain in one person's life counts exactly the same as an identical gain in the life of anyone equally well off. If we have some duty of beneficence to make the world better, prioritarianism specifies the content of the duty. Unlike the utilitarian, the prioritarian holds that we should not only seek to increase human well-being, but also distribute it fairly across persons, by tilting in favor of the worse off. A variant version adds that we should also give priority to the morally deserving – to saints over scoundrels. The view is a standard for right choice of individual actions and public policies, offering a distinctive alternative to utilitarianism (maximize total well-being), sufficiency (make everyone's condition good enough) and egalitarianism (make everyone's condition the same).
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in EthicsOnline ISBN: 9781108582865Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 02 June 2022
References
Adler, M., Well-being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Adler, M., and Holtug, N., “Prioritarianism: A Response to Critics,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 18 (2019), 101–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R., “Desert and Equality,” in Holtug, N. and Lippert-Rasmussen, K., eds., Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, 262–293.Google Scholar
Arneson, R., “Individual Well-Being and Social Justice,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 93 (2019), 39–66.Google Scholar
Benbaji, Y., “Sufficiency or Priority?” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2006), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R., Decision Theory with a Human Face, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Broome, J., Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty, and Time, Oxford, Blackwell’s, 1991.Google Scholar
Broome, J., “Equality and Priority: A Useful Distinction,” Economics and Philosophy 31 (2015), 219–228.Google Scholar
Bykvist, K., “Utilitarianism in the Twentieth Century,” in Eggleston, B. and Miller, D., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, 103-124.Google Scholar
Crisp, R., “In Defense of the Priority View: A Response to Otsuka and Voorhoeve,” Utilitas 23 (2011), 105–108.Google Scholar
Diamond, P., “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Comment,” Journal of Political Economy 75 (1967), 765–766.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Eyal, N., “Egalitarian Justice and Innocent Choice,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2 (2007), 1–18.Google Scholar
Feldman, F., “Adjusting Utility for Justice: A Consequentialist Reply to the Objection from Justice,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55 (1995), 567–585.Google Scholar
Feldman, F., Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve from Our Country, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., “Assessing Risky Social Situations,” Journal of Political Economy 118 (2010), 649–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., “Equality Versus Priority: How Relevant Is the Distinction?” Economics and Philosophy 31 (2015), 203–217.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., and Voorhoeve, A., “Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons,” Utilitas 24 (2012), 381–398.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H., “Equality as a Moral Ideal,” in Frankfurt, H., ed., The Importance of What We Care About, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 134-158.Google Scholar
Greaves, H., “A Reconsideration of the Harsanyi-Sen-Weymark Debate on Utilitarianism,” Utilitas 29 (2016), 175–213.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J., “Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking,” Journal of Political Economy, 61 (1953), 434–435.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J., “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,” Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955), 309–321.Google Scholar
Holtug, N., “On Giving Priority to Possible Future People, in Rannow-Rasmussen, T., et al., eds., Hommage a Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, 2007, www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodekGoogle Scholar
Holtug, N., “Prioritarianism: Ex Ante, Ex Post, or Factualist Criterion of Right?” Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (2019), 207–228.Google Scholar
McKerlie, D., Justice between the Young and the Old, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., Utilitarianism, ed. Sher, G., Indianapolis, Hackett, 1979. Originally published 1861.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J., “Desert-based Justice,” in Olsaretti, S., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Distributive Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, 152–173.Google Scholar
Nagel, T, “Equality,” in Nagel, T., ed., Mortal Questions, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979, 106–127.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., “Prioritarianism and the Measure of Utility,” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (2015), 1–22.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., and Voorhoeve, A., “Why It Matters that Some Are Worse Off than Others: An Argument against the Priority View,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2009), 171–199.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., and Voorhoeve, A., “Equality versus Priority,” in Olsaretti, S., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Distributive Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, 65–85.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Risse, M., “Harsanyi’s ‘Utilitarian Theorem’ and Utilitarianism,” Nous 36 (2002), 550–557.Google Scholar
Roemer, J., Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, Chapter 4, 1996.Google Scholar
Roemer, J., “Egalitarianism against the Veil of Ignorance,” Journal of Philosophy 99 (2002), 167–184.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M., “Rawls on Justification,” in Freeman, S., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 139–167.Google Scholar
Segall, S., “In Defense of Priority (and Equality),” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 14 (2015), 343–364.Google Scholar
Sen, A., “Welfare Inequalities and Rawlsian Axiomatics,” Theory and Decision 7 (1975), 243–262.Google Scholar
Temkin, L., “Inequality: A Complex, Individualistic, and Comparative Notion,” Philosophical Issues 11 (2001), 327–353.Google Scholar
Vallentyne, P., “Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals,” Journal of Ethics 9 (2005), 403–433.Google Scholar
Vallentyne, P., “Critical Notice of Matthew D. Adler’s Well-Being and Fair Distribution,” Analysis Reviews 1 (2013), 1–7.Google Scholar
Weymark, J., “A Reconsideration of the Harsanyi-Sen Debate on Utilitarianism,” in Elster, J. and Roemer, J., eds., Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, 255–320.Google Scholar
Weymark, J., “Measurement Theory and the Foundations of Utilitarianism,” Social Choice and Welfare, 25 (2005), 527–555.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 22
- Cited by