The Persistence of the Leveling Down Objection

Michael Weber

doi:10.23941/ejpe.v12i1.345

Abstract

According to the Leveling Down Objection, some, if not all, egalitarians must concede that leveling down can make things better in a respect—in terms of equality. I argue, first, that if this is true, then it is hard for such egalitarians to avoid the even more disturbing result that leveling down can be better all-things-considered. I then consider and reject two attempts to take this particular sting out of being an egalitarian. The first is Tom Christiano’s argument that the egalitarian is not forced to concede that the leveled down state is better with respect to equality, on the grounds that if equality with respect to any X matters, e.g. welfare, then value must be assigned to X, rendering the leveled down state inferior even with respect to equality. This is insufficient, I argue, to justify his requirement that Pareto-inferior states cannot be better with respect to equality. The second, offered by both Ingmar Persson and Campbell Brown, is to argue that prioritarianism—a central rival to egalitarianism—is also subject to the Leveling Down Objection. Persson and Campbell fail, I claim, because their arguments turn on increases in measures in leveled down states that have no value on the prioritarian view.

Highlights

The Leveling Down Objection has convinced many to reject egalitarianism
Another interesting response, suggested independently by Ingmar Persson (2013) and Campbell Brown (2003), suggests that being subject to the Leveling Down Objection is not so bad because attractive alternative views such as prioritarianism are subject to the Leveling Down Objection
Even if it is allowed that there is widespread acceptance of the conditional value of pleasure, the conditional value of equality is surely quite contentious. Such disagreement undermines the suggestion that no further explanation is required because bedrock has been reached. It is further undermined by the fact that in the case of the conditional value of equality the dissenters are non-partisan: there are both egalitarians, e.g., Moderate Egalitarians such as Temkin, and critics of egalitarianism, e.g., Parfit, that think that a leveled down state is better with respect to equality—that the value of equality is not conditional on some being better off

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The Leveling Down Objection has convinced many to reject egalitarianism. The objection, put is that egalitarians must accept, implausibly, that it is an improvement, at least in some respect, if the better-off are reduced to the level of the worse-off without the worse-off becoming any better off. The resulting view appears to be a brand of what Andrew Mason (2001) calls Conditional Egalitarianism, according to which (greater) equality has final (or non-instrumental) value if and only if some are better off. Another interesting response, suggested independently by Ingmar Persson (2013) and Campbell Brown (2003), suggests that being subject to the Leveling Down Objection is not so bad because attractive alternative views such as prioritarianism are subject to the Leveling Down Objection. Other egalitarians—so-called telic egalitarians—can bite the bullet and accept the consequence that a leveled-down state is better in a certain respect. The thrust of my argument is that recent attempts to avoid the Leveling Down Objection are inadequate, and biting this particular bullet may be unavoidable

THE LEVELING DOWN OBJECTION

CHRISTIANO’S DEFENSE OF EGALITARIANISM

OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANO’S DEFENSE

CONDITIONAL EGALITARIANISM

THE PRIORITARIAN ALTERNATIVE

CONCLUSION