Global Egalitarianism vs. Limitarianism
In contemporary debates about justice and wealth distribution, two normative frameworks have risen in prominence: Global Egalitarianism and Limitarianism. Both challenge extreme inequality and promote fairness, but they have distinct goals, assumptions, and implications. This essay compares and contrasts the two approaches, highlighting their shared moral foundations and key divergences.
Pursuit of Justice and Fairness
Both Global Egalitarianism and Limitarianism believe global inequalities are unjust and morally indefensible. They stress the equal moral worth of all individuals, regardless of nationality, race, or socioeconomic background.
1. Moral Universalism
Both perspectives reject national partiality in matters of justice.
They argue that every person’s interests matter equally, whether they live in New York or Nairobi.
2. Critique of Wealth Concentration
Both criticize the accumulation of extreme wealth, particularly when billions remain in poverty.
They both question the legitimacy of economic systems that enable massive disparities in resources and opportunities.
Global Egalitarianism: Equalizing Across Borders
Global Egalitarianism argues that distributive justice should be applied across the entire globe, not just within national borders. It promotes the equal distribution of resources, or at least equal opportunity for all people to flourish.
Core Principles:
Justice requires transnational redistribution.
Global institutions should be redesigned to reduce inequality.
Some versions advocate for a global basic income or significant aid transfers from wealthy to poor countries.
Key Philosophers:
Thomas Pogge: Argues the global order harms the poor through trade and debt structures.
Charles Beitz: Calls for a global Rawlsian “difference principle.”
Peter Singer: Advocates duties of beneficence toward distant strangers.
Limitarianism: Capping the Excess
Definition:
Limitarianism holds that there is a moral limit to how much wealth any individual should be allowed to possess, regardless of how that wealth was acquired. Beyond a certain threshold, wealth is not just unnecessary but morally problematic.
Core Principles:
Having “too much” money undermines democracy, social cohesion, and moral equality.
The super-rich have a duty to redistribute their excess to meet urgent needs.
It doesn’t call for full equality, but for limits at the top, often without specifying equality at the bottom.
Key Proponent:
Ingrid Robeyns, a Dutch philosopher, is the leading advocate.
She defines Limitarianism as the view that it is morally impermissible to be rich beyond a certain threshold, especially while others lack basic necessities.
Key Differences
Areas of Overlap
Despite their differences, the two theories are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Limitarianism could function as a practical policy within a global egalitarian agenda, helping to finance redistribution and reduce political power disparities.
For example:
A wealth cap (Limitarianism) in rich countries could fund global health and education (Egalitarianism).
Both frameworks reinforce the idea that private wealth beyond a certain point should serve the public good.
Conclusion
Global Egalitarianism and Limitarianism share a fundamental concern with global justice and human dignity, but they diverge in emphasis: one focuses on equality across borders, the other on moral limits to personal accumulation. While Global Egalitarianism seeks to raise the global floor, Limitarianism seeks to lower the ceiling. In tandem, they offer powerful ethical tools for confronting inequality in an age of globalization and concentrated wealth.