What Principle of Equality Defended?
| Author | David Gordon |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1983.tb00082.x |
| Date | 01 October 1983 |
| Published date | 01 October 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
32
Michael
A
Genovese
Notes
1.
2.
Presidential Primaries
first
appeared
in
the twentieth century. They
did
not become
The two Presidents who were eligible for re-election
but
did
not
seek
it
were
Harry
S.
Truman (1952) and Lyndon
B
Johnson (1968).
an important feature of the selection process
until
recent years.
mately three-quarters of all delegates will be chosen
in
primaries.
Today, approxi-
References
Barber, J.D. (ed.) (1974), Choosing the President (Englewood Cliffs,
New
Jersey:
Prenti ce
Hal
1
).
Davis, J.W.
(1967),
Presidential Primaries: Road to the White House
(New
York: Crowell).
Lucy,
W.H.
(1973), 'Polls, Primaries and Presidential Nominations' Journal of Politics,
Vol.
35
No.
4,
November pp.830-84.
Watson,
R.A.
(1980),
The
Presidential Contest (New York: Wiley
and
Sons).
Wayne, S.J.
(1980),
The
Road
to
the White House (New York:
St.
Martin's
Press).
-0-000-0-
WHAT
PR
I
NC
I
PLE
OF
EQUALITY
DEFENDED?
DAVID
GORDON
Mr
Honderich believes that 'there can be no doubt of the superior moral standing
of
egalitarianism over all other moralities'l (p.37). My objections
to
his version
of
egalitarianism have
not
shaken his conviction;
on
the contrary, my remarks are
uni-
formly unsuccessful, ill-judged, and
in
some cases jejune (p.33). Though
I
am afraid
he will consider
it
further
evidence of my stupidity, I cannot
in
turn
acknowledge
his
defence of the Principleof Equality against my criticisms as successful, and have
taken issue
with
six
of
his
eight major points.
Point
One
Honderich claims that
the
Principle
is
'a
more than adequate
guide
to action' (p.34:
The principle that we are to make well-off those who
are
badly-off
is
not
at
all ren-
dered useless by not specifying which groups of badly-off are to,begiven priority. By
analogy, the rule 'take from the overfed and give to the
starving'
is
not
made unclear
'by the fact
that
weightings are not assigned to different conditions of starvation'
(p.34).
given priority.
Honderich's Principle permits
us
to
transfer means that affect the well-being of the
well-off,
so
long as no more of
the
badly-off are created.
can we require without doing this? Are we permitted to reduce their incomes down
to
a
near-subsistence level
,
or,
on
the contrary, would practically any transfer reduce
freedom sufficiently
to
make them badly-off?
After
all,
some
people may
be
strongly
opposed to coercive transfer of their resources to others.
I
am reasonably
sure
Honderich
would
himself be inclined to allow fairly strong measures,
but,
as
the
Principle is stated,
I
do
not see why anyone, even the most
right-wing
Tory, need reject
it.
to enable an anti-egalitarian to fill
in
the blanks as
he
wishes.
provide a definite idea
of
how
much
may
be transferred,and to whom, the Principle tells
us
very little.
egalitarianism
is
being advocated.
But
it
isn't
just
a matter
of
specifying which group of
the
badly-off
is
to be
It
isa'lso a question
of
specifying what may be taken from the well-off.
But
how
much of a transfer
The vagueness of what makes someone badly-off
under
the Principle
is
great enough
Since
it
does not
To
assess the Principle, one needs to knowmy what degree of
To continue reading
Request your trial