Relation to others· Power and justicenamed middle
Sufficientarianism
Axis: Distributive justice — How should wealth and resources be distributed in society?
What matters is neither perfect equality of shares nor the sheer freedom of exchange, but that no one falls below a threshold of sufficiency. A society is just when everyone has enough to lead a decent life; above that threshold, inequalities weigh far less.
Philosophers 2
Show inferred positions (2)
Kantinferable
Kant refuses to let a government impose its conception of happiness on citizens: a paternalistic power would be "the greatest despotism". Yet he does not reduce the state to protecting holdings acquired outside any public condition, since mine and thine become conclusive only in the civil state. He thus authorises taxing the propertied to support those who cannot provide for themselves, for the sake of the people's own preservation. This is redistribution as relief: it aims neither at equal fortunes nor at offsetting inequalities of birth and talent.
Doctrine of Right, §41-49 and General Remark C · On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, II
Hegelinferable
Hegel defends property as the first external realisation of the person, without making equal holdings a demand of abstract right: what each owns, and how much, is a matter of contingency. But this defence does not turn every market outcome into a just distribution: civil society produces a poverty that shuts its members out of its benefits and can breed a rabble, stripped of any sense of right and honour. Public assistance and the corporations, guild-like occupational associations, are meant to answer that exclusion, although Hegel acknowledges a problem of pauperism he does not resolve.
Elements of the Philosophy of Right, §41, §49, §200 · Elements of the Philosophy of Right, §230, §241-245, §252-256
Argument
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
See the pageObjectionAttacks the position
- Sufficientarianism measures justice by a basket of goods: does each person have enough? Once the threshold is reached, it declares itself satisfied.
- 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.
- 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 : 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.
See the page- PrescriptivePolitical & legalJust enough?
Is justice satisfied once everyone has the means to lead a decent life? What remains is to say what having enough means, and in the name of what a threshold is deemed sufficient.
the threshold of enough - PrescriptivePolitical & legalDoes justice stop at borders?
Do we owe the same distributive justice to all of humanity, or do our duties of sharing stop at the members of our own political community?
borders