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

 





June 12, 2026

 

 

     ![objects imperfectly balanced](/sites/g/files/omnuum9911/files/styles/hwp_16_9__480x270/public/2026-06/myles-bloomfield-p8JbzOUwdjg-unsplash.jpg?itok=YrEQv5Z9) 

 



 

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](https://www.ethics.harvard.edu/publication/why-it-matters-some-are-worse-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.