IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/utilit/v16y2004i02p193-219_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Some Inequalities more Unequal than Others? Nature, Nurture and Equality

Author

Listed:
  • LIPPERT-RASMUSSEN, KASPER

Abstract

Many egalitarians believe that social inequalities are worse than natural ones. Others deny that one can coherently distinguish between them. I argue that although one can separate the influence of these factors by an analysis of variance, the distinction is morally irrelevant. It might be alleged that my argument in favour of moral irrelevance attacks a straw man. While I think this allegation is incorrect, I accommodate it by distinguishing between four claims that are related to, and sometimes confused with, the claim that social inequalities are worse. These are: that one has a stronger reason to eliminate inequalities that obtain between, or are produced by, members of one's own society; that inequalities that result from unfair treatment are worse; that inequalities that we make, rather than merely allowing to exist, are worse; and that it is bad if people are treated unfairly.

Suggested Citation

  • Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, 2004. "Are Some Inequalities more Unequal than Others? Nature, Nurture and Equality," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 193-219, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:16:y:2004:i:02:p:193-219_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820804000536/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, 2019. "Is it unjust that elderly people suffer from poorer health than young people? Distributive and relational egalitarianism on age-based health inequalities," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 145-164, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:16:y:2004:i:02:p:193-219_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/uti .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.