Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-mhx7p Total loading time: 0.434 Render date: 2022-05-29T07:59:30.123Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Intra-Family Inequality and Justice1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

XAVIER LANDES
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
MORTEN EBBE JUUL NIELSEN
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen

Abstract

In “The Pecking Order,” Dalton Conley argues that inequalities between siblings are larger than inequalities at the level of the overall society. Our article discusses the normative implications for institutions of this observation. We show that the question of state intervention for curbing intra-family inequality reveals an internal tension within liberalism between autonomy and toleration, which bears on the forms that the intervention of institutions may take. Despite the pros and cons of both commitments, autonomy-based liberalism appears more compatible with the involvement of the state for egalitarian reasons within the family than toleration-based liberalism.

Dans « The Pecking Order », Dalton Conley soutient que les inégalités entre enfants d’une même famille sont plus importantes que les inégalités à l’échelle de la société. Nous étudions les implications normatives de cette observation au niveau institutionnel. La question de l’intervention étatique visant à restreindre l’inégalité intrafamiliale révèle une tension interne au libéralisme entre l’autonomie et la tolérance, qui influe sur la forme que l’intervention institutionnelle peut revêtir. En dépit des avantages et désavantages de chaque position, le libéralisme fondé sur l’autonomie semble plus compatible avec l’engagement de l’État au sein de la famille pour des raisons égalitariennes que le libéralisme fondé sur la tolérance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneson, Richard J. 1989Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.” Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 7793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariely, Dan 2008 Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Brennan, Samantha and Noggle, Robert 1997The Moral Status of Children: Children’s Rights, Parents’ Rights, and Family Justice.” Social Theory and Practice 23 (1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse, Harry and Swift, Adam 2006Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family.” Ethics 117 (1): 80108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A. 1989On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice.” Ethics 99 (4): 906944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A 1997Where the Action is: On the Site of Distributive Justice.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1): 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, Dalton 2004 The Pecking Order: A Bold New Look at How Family and Society Determine Who We Become. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
De Wijze, Stephen 2000The Family and Political Justice: The Case for Political Liberalisms.” The Journal of Ethics 4 (3): 257281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Gerald 1988 The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 1989The Liberal Community.” California Law Review 77 (3): 479504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 2002 Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 1995Two Concepts of Liberalism.” Ethics 105 (3): 516534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Daniel T. 2006 Stumbling on Happiness, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy 1987 Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Rosenbluth, Frances 2010 Women, Work, and Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Carl 2009 Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kukathas, Chandran 2004 Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jacob T. 2003Liberalism’s Divide After Socialism– and Before.” Social Philosophy and Policy 20 (1): 278297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Stephen 1995Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls?Ethics 105 (3): 468496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart 1848 Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller 1989 Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller 1994Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender.” Ethics 105 (1): 2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John 1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2001 Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Richard H. 2003Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron.” University of Chicago Law Review 70 (4): 11591202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, Adam 2008Justice, Luck, and the Family: The Intergenerational Transmission of Economic Advantage From a Normative Perspective.” In Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success, eds. Bowles, Samuel, Gintis, Herbert, and Groves, Melissa Osborne. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 256276.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R. 2008 Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel 1974Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walzer, Michael 1984 Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Intra-Family Inequality and Justice1
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Intra-Family Inequality and Justice1
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Intra-Family Inequality and Justice1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *