Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:01:01.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Ethics

Prioritarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2022

Richard J. Arneson
Richard J. Arneson
Affiliation:
University of California

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).
Get access

Keywords

well-beingequalityutilitarianismpublic policynormative political theory
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Ethics
Online ISBN: 9781108582865
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 02 June 2022

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

Adler, M., Well-being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Adler, M., “Prioritarianism: Room for Desert?” Utilitas 30 (2018), 172–197.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
Arpaly, N., “Moral Worth,” Journal of Philosophy 99 (2002), 223–245.Google Scholar
Benbaji, Y., “The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defense,” Utilitas 17 (2005), 310–332.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
Buchak, L., Risk and Rationality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Buchak, L., “Taking Risks Behind the Veil of Ignorance,” Ethics 127 (2017), 610–644.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
Casal, P., “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics 117 (2007), 296–326.Google Scholar
Crisp, R., “Equality, Priority, and Compassion,” Ethics 113 (2003), 745–763.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
Hirose, I., Egalitarianism, London, Routledge, 2015, Chapters 4 and 5.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., Persons, Interests, and Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Holtug, N., “Prioritarianism: Ex Ante, Ex Post, or Factualist Criterion of Right?” Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (2019), 207–228.Google Scholar
Kagan, S., The Geometry of Desert, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Kavka, G., “Some Paradoxes of Deterrence,” Journal of Philosophy 75 (1978), 285–302.Google Scholar
McKerkie, D., “Dimensions of Egalitarianism,” Utilitas 13 (2001), 263–288.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
Nozick, R., Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, Basic Books, 1974.Google Scholar
O’Neill, M., “Priority, Preference, and Value,” Utilitas 24 (2012), 332–348.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
Parfit, D., “Equality or Priority?” The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, 1995.Google Scholar
Parfit, D., On What Matters, vol. 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Parfit, D., “Another Defense of the Priority View,” Utilitas 24 (2012), 399–440.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D., Living without Free Will, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Porter, T., “In Defence of the Priority View,” Utilitas 24 (2012), 349–364.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W., “Prioritarianism for Prospects,” Utilitas 14 (2002), 2–21.Google Scholar
Rae, D. et al., Inequalities, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1981.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
Risse, M., On Global Justice, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2012.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
Ross, W. D., The Right and the Good, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1930.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
Sumner, L. W., Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Tadros, V., Wrongs and Crimes, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Temkin, L., Inequality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993.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
Weber, M., “Prioritarianism,” Philosophy Compass 9 (2014), 315–331.Google Scholar
Weirich, P., “Utility Tempered with Equality,” Nous 17 (1983), 315–331.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
Williams, A., “The Priority View Bites the Dust?” Utilitas 24 (2012), 315–331.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.

Prioritarianism
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

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

Prioritarianism
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

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

Prioritarianism
Available formats
×