Devon Cass

Can the ideal of relational equality—or, more generally, the relational approach to justice—be applied to animals? Animals have, across time and place, held different social statuses (e.g. as incarnations of gods to be worshiped or as plagues to be exterminated). And yet, in spite of this, the above question remains underexplored. In this paper, we defend an optimistic answer, and make a twofold contribution. First, we formulate and thoroughly inspect three challenges to the extension of the relational framework to animals: (i) that they cannot engage in reciprocal interpersonal relationships (the ‘absence of social relations problem’), (ii) that, given animals’ lack of a sense of self-worth, it is not clear how social hierarchies between animals and humans could be objectionable (the ‘absence of understanding problem’), and (iii) that animals are not, or so at least many philosophers argue, humans’ moral equals (the ‘absence of moral equality problem’). Second, we argue that these challenges, although important, can be answered. The relational framework, we argue, is flexible and rich enough to overcome the three challenges without losing normative attractiveness and substantive bite. If we are right, some social hierarchies between humans and animals may be objectionable on grounds of relational justice.

Lars Moen, in The Republican Dilemma, argues that freedom as non-domination is either 1) undistinctive, involving the same directives for promoting freedom as the supposedly rival pure negative conception of freedom; or it is 2) unsuitable for modern society, being at odds with contemporary conditions of pluralism. Here I give a short precis of the book along with brief summaries of the other discussions in this symposium. Finally, I suggest a way in which I think the first horn of the dilemma can be resisted.

Intergenerational justice has in recent decades become an increasingly important subfield of political philosophy. However, due to the absence of coexistence and other aspects of the intergenerational context, it is often unclear whether and how many ideals of justice apply. As such, relational egalitarianism – the view that justice requires equal social relationships – may appear particularly implausible in this domain. In this introduction, we explain this issue, motivating its further examination. Finally, we briefly summarize how the papers in this volume take up this challenge and offer insightful developments on both fronts, advancing our understanding of intergenerational justice and relational egalitarianism.

Some theorists argue that relational egalitarianism offers no guidance for questions of justice between non-overlapping generations because the relevant kinds of social relations do not exist. To assess this challenge, I distinguish two versions of relational egalitarianism: an interpersonal approach that focuses on particular kinds of dispositions and attitudes, and an institutional approach that focuses on the kind of status people hold under institutions. I argue that the institutional approach meets the challenge. To illustrate this claim, I discuss several cases involving climate change, public debt, and paternalism. Finally, I suggest how the approach I develop bears on the non-identity problem and on the choice of intergenerational distributive principle.

In recent years, a distinction between two concepts of equality has been much discussed: “distributive” equality involves people having equal amounts of a good such as welfare or resources, and “social” or “relational” equality involves the absence of (certain kinds of) social hierarchy and the presence of (certain kinds of) equal social relations. This contrast is commonly thought to have important implications for our understanding of the relationship between equality and justice. But the nature and significance of the distinction is far from clear. I examine several accounts of this issue and argue none are entirely satisfactory. In turn, I offer an alternative proposal. Relational equality, on my account, involves a concern with each person having an equal “civic status.” I characterize this concern and show it has distinctive and normatively significant positional and temporal aspects.

(This book, in Portuguese translation, is an accessible introduction to the philosophy of equality and social justice, with a focus on contemporary theories, especially relational egalitarianism.) O que significa para uma sociedade ser igualitária? A igualdade é amplamente reconhecida como valiosa, seja por cidadãos, políticos, juristas ou filósofos. Ademais, a ideia de igualdade desempenha um papel de grande relevância em muitos movimentos sociais do passado e do presente. Há bastante discordância, porém, acerca de como, exatamente, devemos compreender a natureza e a importância da igualdade. O presente ensaio examina estas questões e apresenta um panorama sumário das mais centrais e influentes abordagens filosóficas à igualdade no quadro de diferentes teorias da justiça, concentrando-se, em particular, na ideia de justiça baseada na igualdade de relações sociais.

Several philosophers argue for the ‘convergence thesis’ for positional goods: prioritarians, sufficientarians, and egalitarians may converge on favouring an equal (or not too unequal) distribution of goods that have positional aspects. I discuss some problems for this thesis when applied to two key goods for which it has been proposed: education and wealth. I show, however, that there is a variant of the thesis that avoids these problems. This version of the thesis is significant, I demonstrate, because it applies to a person’s status as a citizen, which I suggest is the central concern of social or ‘relational’ egalitarianism.

The distinction between ‘relational' and ‘distributive’ equality has come to play an important role in discussions of equality and justice. But the nature of the distinction is not as clear as we might hope. In this regard, Juliana Bidadanure makes an interesting and important proposal: the two views involve differing kinds of temporal concern. The distributive approach, she suggests, is concerned with equality over people’s complete lives (diachronic equality), whereas the relational approach is concerned with egalitarian social relations at each moment in time (synchronic equality). I argue that this suggestion, while insightful, is not entirely satisfactory. Both relational and distributive equality, I demonstrate, have diachronic and synchronic aspects. Nonetheless, they do so in distinctive ways. So, while the diachronic/synchronic distinction does not provide a clean cut between relational and distributive equality, examining the temporal aspects of each approach helps to illuminate their distinctiveness.

This paper examines the following distinctive republican claims: (1) goodwill and virtuous self-restraint are insufficient to realize freedom; and (2) suitable law is constitutive of freedom. In the contemporary literature, these claims are commonly defended in connection with the conception of freedom as nondomination. This account, however, is often rejected on the grounds that freedom as nondomination is moralized and impossible to realize. In response, I propose that the point of protecting people from domination is better understood not as realizing freedom, but instead as giving persons a civic status as equals. Giving persons a civic status as equals, I claim, realizes an important form of social or 'relational' equality, and I distinguish this aim from giving persons a 'status as nondominated’, as some republicans require. I argue that this account vindicates alternative claims about the insufficiency of goodwill and constitutive importance of suitable law—understood in terms of equality rather than freedom—while avoiding the moralization and impossibility objections. I conclude by suggesting some further advantages of the proposed account versus the standard republican view.

John Rawls’s thesis that a certain package of basic liberties should be given lexical priority is of great interest for legal and political philosophy, but it has received relatively little defense from Rawls or his supporters. In this paper, I examine three arguments for the thesis: the first is based on the two ‘moral powers’; the second, on the social bases of self-respect; and the third, on a Kantian notion of autonomy. I argue none of these accounts successfully establishes 1) the distinct claim of lexical priority, 2) for the complete package of basic liberties, on the basis of reasons that are appropriately public. In turn, I propose an alternative argument, in support of those two claims, based on the social or ‘relational’ conception of equality.