Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:05:22.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intra-Family Inequality and Justice1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

XAVIER LANDES  and
MORTEN EBBE JUUL NIELSEN
XAVIER LANDES
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
MORTEN EBBE JUUL NIELSEN
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In “The Pecking Order,” Dalton Conley argues that inequalities between siblings are larger than inequalities at the level of the overall society. Our article discusses the normative implications for institutions of this observation. We show that the question of state intervention for curbing intra-family inequality reveals an internal tension within liberalism between autonomy and toleration, which bears on the forms that the intervention of institutions may take. Despite the pros and cons of both commitments, autonomy-based liberalism appears more compatible with the involvement of the state for egalitarian reasons within the family than toleration-based liberalism.

Dans « The Pecking Order », Dalton Conley soutient que les inégalités entre enfants d’une même famille sont plus importantes que les inégalités à l’échelle de la société. Nous étudions les implications normatives de cette observation au niveau institutionnel. La question de l’intervention étatique visant à restreindre l’inégalité intrafamiliale révèle une tension interne au libéralisme entre l’autonomie et la tolérance, qui influe sur la forme que l’intervention institutionnelle peut revêtir. En dépit des avantages et désavantages de chaque position, le libéralisme fondé sur l’autonomie semble plus compatible avec l’engagement de l’État au sein de la famille pour des raisons égalitariennes que le libéralisme fondé sur la tolérance.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 437 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneson, Richard J. 1989 “Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.” Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 77–93.Google Scholar
Ariely, Dan 2008 Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Brennan, Samantha and Noggle, Robert 1997 “The Moral Status of Children: Children’s Rights, Parents’ Rights, and Family Justice.” Social Theory and Practice 23 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Brighouse, Harry and Swift, Adam 2006 “Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family.” Ethics 117 (1): 80–108.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A. 1989 “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice.” Ethics 99 (4): 906–944.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A 1997 “Where the Action is: On the Site of Distributive Justice.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Conley, Dalton 2004 The Pecking Order: A Bold New Look at How Family and Society Determine Who We Become. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
De Wijze, Stephen 2000 “The Family and Political Justice: The Case for Political Liberalisms.” The Journal of Ethics 4 (3): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Gerald 1988 The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 1989 “The Liberal Community.” California Law Review 77 (3): 479–504.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 2002 Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 1995 “Two Concepts of Liberalism.” Ethics 105 (3): 516–534.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Daniel T. 2006 Stumbling on Happiness, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy 1987 Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Rosenbluth, Frances 2010 Women, Work, and Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Carl 2009 Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kukathas, Chandran 2004 Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jacob T. 2003 “Liberalism’s Divide After Socialism– and Before.” Social Philosophy and Policy 20 (1): 278–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Stephen 1995 “Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls?” Ethics 105 (3): 468–496.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart 1848 Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller 1989 Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller 1994 “Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender.” Ethics 105 (1): 23–43.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2001 Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Richard H. 2003 “Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron.” University of Chicago Law Review 70 (4): 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, Adam 2008 “Justice, Luck, and the Family: The Intergenerational Transmission of Economic Advantage From a Normative Perspective.” In Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success, eds. Bowles, Samuel, Gintis, Herbert, and Groves, Melissa Osborne. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 256–276.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R. 2008 Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel 1974 “Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael 1984 Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar