Abstract
This chapter starts by examining Robeyns’ instrumental limitarianism and argues that this view is not limitarian as such, since the intrinsic values to be promoted are better served by other instrumental principles. Next, it is argued that it is difficult to envision a compelling version of intrinsic limitarianism. The reason is first that the possible versions of intrinsic limitarianism suggested (but not endorsed) by Robeyns really rest on other values, pushing limitarianism back into the instrumental realm. Second, a version of limitarianism based directly on the (supposed) badness of having too much, is unconvincing. Subsequently, instrumental views (other than Robeyns’) are revisited, but also found wanting. Lastly, the attempt to defend a more limited limitarianism, a ‘limitarian presumption,’ is assessed and rejected.
Funder
European Research Council
Reference21 articles.
1. Christiano, Thomas. 2012. Money in politics. In: David Estlund (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376692.013.0013
2. Equality, Priority, and Compassion;Crisp, Roger;Ethics,2003
3. Dworkin, Gerald. 2020. Paternalism. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
4. Foley, Jonathan A. 2011. Can we feed the world and sustain the planet? A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage. Scientific American, 305, 60−5.
5. Hikers in Flip-Flops: Luck Egalitarianism, Democratic Equality and the Distribuenda
of Justice;Gheaus, Anca;Journal of Applied Philosophy,2016