Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Those Who Could Have Existed

Former Fellow-in-Residence Dr. David O'Brien has a new article in Utilitas titled "Why it Matters That Some are Worse Off Than Those Who Could Have Existed." The article examines egalitarianism and prioritarianism as they relate to a case raised by philosopher Michael Otsuka in which he considers two possible people (only one of whom will ever exist) and a shared intuition about their welfare. While prioritarianism (which prioritizes benefiting the worst off) can easily explain this intuition, Otsuka argues that egalitarianism cannot, because there is never a point at which both people exist and can be compared. O'Brien challenges this conclusion by arguing that egalitarianism is fundamentally motivated by a concern with avoiding arbitrary inequalities, not merely inequalities among simultaneously existing individuals.