Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 August 2016
People vary in both tastes and talents. What is the most sensible formulation of the egalitarian ideal once this fact is fully taken into account? The paper examines a number of answers that have been offered to this question, in particular Ronald Dworkin’s counterfactual insurance schemes, and argues against them. It then presents an alternative proposal. The latter generalizes Bruce Ackerman’s notion of undominated genetic diversity, it can be interpreted as a condition of potential envy-freedom, and it is consistent with, though more specific than, Amartya Sen’s capability-based approach.
Etant donné le fait que les individus ont des goûts et des talents différents, quelle est la formulation la plus raisonnable de l’idéal égalitaire? L’article examine diverses réponses données à cette question, et en particulier la notion de plans d’assurance contre-factuels présentée par Dworkin. Différents arguments critiques à l’égard de celle-ci sont avancés. L’alternative proposée généralise la notion de diversité génétique non-dominée, avancée par Bruce Ackerman, elle est peut-être interprété comme une non-envie potentielle. Il est montré que cette notion, bien que plus spécifique, est compatible avec l’approche de Sen en termes de capacités.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a workshop of the European Consortium for Political Research in Paris in April 1989. I am very grateful to its discussant, Brian Barry, and to Vicky Barham, Erik Schokkaert and Bernard Stainier, for useful critical comments. Something close to the present version was presented in April 1990 at the Universities of Wisconsin (Madison) and California (Davis), where it prompted very stimulating reactions from Dan Hausman, Guy Perez, Erik Wright, Richard Arneson, David Copp, Jean Hampton, John Roemer, Robert Sugden and others. Unfortunately, only minor changes could be made in this light. More substantial changes suggested by these discussions will have to await the redrafting of this paper as a chapter of a book in progress on “What (if anything) is wrong with capitalism?”.