It has become somewhat a commonplace in recent political philosophy to remark that all plausible political theories must share at least one fundamental premise, ‘that all humans are one another's equals’. One single concept of ‘basic equality’, therefore, is cast as the common touchstone of all contemporary political thought. This paper argues that this claim is false. Virtually all do indeed say that all humans are ‘equals’ in some basic sense. However, this is not the same sense. There are not (...) one but two concepts of basic equality, and they reflect not a grand unity within political philosophy but a deep and striking division. I call these concepts ‘Equal Worth’ and ‘Equal Authority’. The former means that each individual’s good is of equal moral worth. The latter means that no individual is under the natural authority of anyone else. Whilst these two predicates are not in themselves logically inconsistent, I demonstrate that they are inconsistent foundation stones for political theory. A theory that starts from Equal Worth will find it near impossible to justify Equal Authority. And a theory that starts from Equal Authority will find any fact about the true worth of things, including ourselves, irrelevant to justifying legitimate action. This helps us identify the origin of many of our deepest and seemingly intractable disagreements within political philosophy, and directs our attention to the need for a clear debate about the truth and/or relationship between the two concepts. In short, my call to arms can be summed up in the demand that political philosophers never again be allowed to claim ‘that all human beings are equals’ full stop. They must be clear in what dimension they claim that we are equals—Worth or Authority. (shrink)

This article contributes to the debate on automation and justice by discussing two under-represented concerns: labour justice and equality. Since automation involves both winners and losers, and given that there is no ‘end of work’ on the horizon, it is argued that most normative views on the subject – i.e. the ‘allocative’ view of basic income, and the ‘desirability’ views of post-work and workist ethics – do not provide many resources with which to address unjustly unequal divisions of labour involved (...) in technological innovation. This article problematises these common responses reframing the problem from the perspective of labour justice. While the allocative view assumes that labour justice follows ‘spontaneously’ from income redistribution, the desirability views are chiefly interested in either defining or contesting the meanings of work for individuals, overlooking the interdependent nature of work and concerns of equality other than autonomy. Two conceptions of labour justice are thus applied to the problem: Paul Gomberg’s contributive justice, and Iris Young’s democratic division of labour. Instead of deciding between them, the normative core of ‘contributive parity’ is suggested as a critical standard for assessing unequal labour structures, and for envisaging a future in which technology can be an ally in making social cooperation fair. (shrink)

Contra el "sentido ordinario" de que la justicia implica, entre otras cosas, dar a cada quien lo que se merece, en su teoría de la justicia como equidad John Rawls adopta una perspectiva normativa radicalmente anti-meritocrática al considerar que nadie merece su lugar inicial en la sociedad y, por lo tanto, los factores contingentes no pueden tener incidencia distributiva. Desde el comunitarismo, se argumenta que la concepción rawlsiana del sujeto –despojado de casi toda particularidad– impide abordar la cuestión del mérito (...) en tanto bien social propio de la esfera del reconocimiento. El libertarismo de derecha nozickeano, en tanto, recusa las pretensiones rawlsianas ya que desconoce la validez de la regla contractual que impide sacar provecho total de los atributos moralmente arbitrarios. Desde el igualitarismo relacional, Thomas Scanlon procura una rehabilitación limitada del mérito, en la medida en que sea o bien institucionalmente dependiente o merecimiento puro. Así, en lo que sigue, examinaremos la propuesta rawlsiana y la de sus críticos, para mostrar que, en definitiva, la anti-meritocracia de Rawls sale airosa de los embates más radicales y, en cierta medida, puede alojar la posición de Scanlon pero al precio de volverse menos exigente. ARK: ark:/s18537960/thqx/xirg. (shrink)