If You’re an Egalitarian, You Shouldn’t be so Rich

Abstract

G.A. Cohen famously claims that egalitarians shouldn’t be so rich. If you possess excess income and there is little chance that the state will redistribute it to the poor, you are obligated to donate it yourself. We argue that this conclusion is correct, but that the case against the rich egalitarian is significantly stronger than the one Cohen offers. In particular, the standard arguments against donating one’s excess income face two critical, unrecognized problems. First, we show that these arguments imply that citizens have no duty to further egalitarian political institutions—a conclusion that Cohen’s Rawlsian opponents cannot abide. Second, these arguments yield unacceptable implications for other questions of justice. We conclude that even moderately rich egalitarians are obligated to donate their excess income.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an argument in this spirit, see Gomberg (2002).

  2. 2.

    The discussion has been extensive. For an incomplete sampling of defenses of monism see, e.g., Cohen (1997), Murphy (1998). On behalf of dualism, see, e.g., Williams (1998, Wolff (1998), Pogge (2000), Cohen (2001), Scheffler (2006).

  3. 3.

    This style of claim is made in Cohen (2008: 40–46), Cohen (2009).

References

  1. Achen, Christopher, and Larry Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkire, Sabina, Florent Bédécarrats, Angus Deaton, Gaël Giraud, Isabelle Guérin, Barbara Harriss-White, James Heckman, Jason Hickel, Naila Kabeer, Solène Morvant-Roux, Judea Pearl, Cécile Renouard, François Roubaud, Jean-Michel Servet, and Joseph Stiglitz. 2018. Buzzwords and Tortuous Impact Studies Won’t Fix a Broken Aid System. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jul/16/buzzwords-crazes-broken-aid-system-poverty Accessed Dec 2019.

  3. Bernietax.com. 2019. https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s Accessed Dec 2019.

  4. Cohen, G.A. 1997. Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 26: 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, G.A. 2000. If You’re An Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich. Journal of Ethics 4: 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, G.A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, G.A. 2009. Why Not Socialism?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, Joshua. 2001. Taking People as They Are. Philosophy & Public Affairs 30: 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelman, Andrew, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin. 2012. What is the Probability Your Vote Will Make a Difference? Economic Inquiry 50: 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Global Rich List 2019. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Accessed Dec 2019.

  11. Gomberg, Paul. 2002. The Fallacy of Philanthropy. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32: 29–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy, Liam. 1998. Institutions and the Demands of Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27: 251–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nagel, Thomas. 1975. Libertarianism Without Foundations. Yale Law Journal 85: 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen, Tina. 2016. Bernie Sanders Buys His Third House. Vanity Fair. August 2017. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house Accessed Dec 2019.

  15. Pogge, Thomas. 2000. On the Site of Distributive Justice: Reflections on Cohen and Murphy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 29: 137–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Posner, Richard. 1999. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rawls, John. 1955. Two Concepts of Rules. Philosophical Review 64: 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Scheffler, Samuel. 2006. Is the Basic Structure Basic? In The Egalitarian Conscience, ed. Christine Sypnowich, 102–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Swift, Adam. 2004. The Morality of School Choice. Theory and Research in Education 2: 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. US Individual Income Tax Return, Bernard Sanders. 2014. https://berniesanders.com/documents/6/Sanders-IRS-Filing-2014.pdf. Accessed Dec 2019.

  24. US Individual Income Tax Return, Bernard Sanders. 2018. https://berniesanders.com/documents/10/Sanders-IRS-Filing-2018.pdf. Accessed Dec 2019.

  25. Williams, Andrew. 1998. Incentives, Inequality and Publicity. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27: 226–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolff, Jonathan. 1998. Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27: 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Freiman.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brennan, J., Freiman, C. If You’re an Egalitarian, You Shouldn’t be so Rich. J Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-020-09342-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Egalitarianism
  • Distributive justice
  • G.A. Cohen
  • John Rawls