Abstract
In this commentary on Torbjörn Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities, I argue that sufficientarianism provides a valuable perspective in considering how to set health care priorities. I claim that pace Tännsjö, sufficientarianism does offer a distinct alternative to prioritarianism. To demonstrate this, I introduce sufficientarianism and distinguish two forms: Tännsjö’s “weak sufficientarianism” and an alternative strong form of sufficientarianism that I call “revised lexical sufficientarianism.” I raise a problem for Tännsjö’s sufficientarianism, and advocate for the revised view on this basis. I then demonstrate that in the area of population ethics, the revised view outperforms the other views Tännsjö considers. As such, I aim to demonstrate that sufficientarianism — understood as its own theory and not just as a form of prioritarianism — offers unique advantages in population ethics, and would have been a valuable complement to the other theories Tännsjö considers.
Reference23 articles.
1. WHY JUSTICE REQUIRES TRANSFERS TO OFFSET INCOME AND WEALTH
INEQUALITIES
2. Arneson R.J. (2006), “Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: ‘Good Enough’ is Not Good Enough,” [in:] Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems, A. Kaufman (ed.), Routledge, New York-London: 17–43.
3. The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence
4. Sufficiency or Priority?
5. Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough