Sufficientarianism

1. When inequality outrages us, let us look at what actually outrages us: not that the rich have ten houses, but that the poor have no roof. It is the shortfall, not the gap, that speaks to our sense of justice.
2. Now equality and sufficiency are two distinct things: one can equalize by leveling down, making everyone equally destitute, without fixing anything; and one can meet everyone's needs while leaving large gaps above.
3. If it is the shortfall that counts, the right measure is not 'as much as others' but 'enough to lead a dignified life': above that threshold, the gap loses most of its moral weight.

Therefore So justice aims neither at perfect equality of shares nor at the sheer freedom of exchange, but at a floor: that no one falls below the threshold of the necessary, inequality above it mattering far less.

1. Sufficientarianism measures justice by a basket of goods: does each person have enough? Once the threshold is reached, it declares itself satisfied.
2. But a society can secure the necessities for all while still sorting people into superiors and inferiors: dependent on a boss, a husband, a benefactor whose favor must be begged. The basket is full, the relation remains that of a dependent.
3. But what wounds in inequality is not only the shortfall, it is having to bow one's head, to count for less as a person. The equality that counts is equality of relations: that no one stands above another.

Therefore So a floor of sufficiency is not enough: justice also requires that people stand as equals, without domination, which may demand narrowing gaps that sufficiency alone would let run.