Notes on: Schemmel 2011 "Why Relational Egalitarians Should Care About Distributions"
Introduction
Topic: What relational egalitarianism (RE) expects from how goods are shared (distributive justice), and why equal relationships matter for how things are distributed when people work together in society.
Key idea: RELATIONAL EGALITARIANISM focuses on social fairness by preventing unfair, unequal relationships (like one group dominating another, ignoring some groups, or having bad social class differences) instead of just aiming for everyone to have the exact same amount of stuff. It's really about everyone having equal social standing when they work together, not just equal amounts of goods.
This perspective encourages creating social structures that promote cooperation and mutual respect, allowing individuals to engage in meaningful interactions without hindrance from systemic inequalities.
Against luck egalitarianism (LE): RE responds to common criticisms of LE, but also explains its own ideas about how goods should be shared. These ideas have both intrinsic (they are just because equality is important) and instrumental (they are practical and helpful) reasons to limit how much inequality there is in distribution.
Core motivation: To make sure everyone who participates in society’s cooperative production of goods feels respected and has equal moral standing; figuring out how this leads to rules about how things are distributed.
Definitions used in this paper:
Relational egalitarianism (RE): A view on social justice that requires basic social and political systems to help individuals, as members of society, avoid being dominated or ignored, and to discourage unfair social class systems. This ensures everyone has an equal basis for self-respect.
Self-respect (social bases of self-respect): A feeling that you are a free and capable person, and an equal part of society's cooperation; it's threatened when you are dominated (ruled by someone else's arbitrary power) or marginalized (denied opportunities).
Basic structure (Rawlsian term): The main social, political, and economic systems that manage production and distribution over time; justice is about how these systems govern interactions, not just the final results.
Relationship to other views:
Anderson’s minimalist sufficiency view: She offers a three-part way of looking at equality (human abilities, role as a worker, and democratic involvement). However, Schemmel argues that this view misses the inherent reasons why RELATIONAL equality should demand limits on inequality, even if everyone has enough to meet a basic standard.
Scheffler’s work is recognized but not fully explored; this paper aims to clarify what RE means for how goods are shared, not to decide which theory of equality is best.
Guiding aim: To make clear what a relational egalitarian idea of social justice means for how things are distributed, and how these ideas relate to both inherent and practical reasons for limiting inequality.
1. Justice-Based Relational Egalitarianism: The Problem
RE is a theory of social justice about the rights and duties people have towards each other. These rights and duties are more important than other social values. RE aims to make sure institutions allow for equal standing, prevent domination and marginalization, and discourage unfair social class systems.
The main problem RE addresses isn't just that unequal social relationships are bad; it's that they lead to unfair domination (when power is used arbitrarily) and marginalization (when people are unfairly denied opportunities).
The RELATIONAL focus on self-respect:
Self-respect means a person's standing as a free and equal participant in working together in society.
Domination harms self-respect because those who are dominated live at the mercy of others.
RE wants to make the social foundations of self-respect equal for all members of society.
The central contrast: RE is a view of equality based on justice, not just a general value of equality pursued for its own sake. It aims to connect equality with fairness in social cooperation and justice, not just with how goods are distributed.
The link to distributive justice is debated: Anderson’s view is criticized for promoting a simple