Wellman's "reductive" justifications for redistributive policies that favor compatriots

Ethics

Volumn 111, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 782-788

  Coons, Christian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035402626     PISSN: 00141704     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/233573     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Christopher Wellman, "Relational Facts in Liberal Political Theory: Is There Magic in the Pronoun 'My'?" Ethics 110 (2000): 537-62.
2. Ibid., pp. 545, 549.
3. An efficiency-based justification (very roughly) is an account of the form: (1) we ought to favor efficient redistributions to inefficient redistributions (ceteris paribus) and (2) redistributions to fellow citizens are generally more efficient than those to citizens in other states. Therefore, (3) in general we ought to prefer redistributions to fellow citizens over redistributions to citizens from foreign states (ceteris paribus). A good example of such an account can be found in Robert Goodin's "What's So Special about Our Countrymen?" Ethics 98 (1988): 663-86, p. 685.
4. This is Wellman's example; see p. 545.
5. Ibid., p. 546.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. Wellman cites the work of Elizabeth Anderson to support his position, "What Is the Point of Equality?" Ethics 109 (1999): 287-337.
9. Ibid. Wellman cites the work of Elizabeth Anderson to support his position, "What Is the Point of Equality?" Ethics 109 (1999): 287-337.
10. Wellman, p. 547.
11. It is worth considering whether there may be a principled reason Wellman is warranted in ignoring the possibility that redistributions to foreigners may redress inequalities between foreigners of the same state. Unfortunately, Wellman never gives or alludes to such a reason. Perhaps Wellman or some other theorist might urge that one greater reason to redress inequalities is when we are one of the relata in the inequality. Thus, affluent Americans may have greater reason or obligation to redress the inequalities that hold between them and others but no obligation, or less reason, to redress inequalities that hold between others and others (e.g., affluent Mexicans and poor Mexicans). If Wellman could defend such a position his first two justifications may succeed, yet it is hard to see how such a defense might proceed. Nevertheless, the search for such a defense may be a profitable option to explore for a liberal dissatisfied with a traditional "efficiency" account.
12. Ibid., p. 548, my italics.
13. Consider that he infers this claim (at least in part) from the contention that a person in a less wealthy state will typically derive more satisfaction, from the same bundle of resources, than a person in a wealthier state. Many people I am sure would regard this as a key premise in an argument to the conclusion that wealthy states ought to prefer redistributions to those in poorer states. I will not expand on this suggestion here.
14. It is not clear from the text if Wellman is intending to offer a justification for the claim that citizens ought to prefer redistributive strategies that favor their compatriots or the claim that states ought to prefer redistributive schemes that favor their compatriots (or citizens). I suspect he is intending to provide justifications for both of these claims. Thus, I have hedged by writing "affluent citizens of a wealthy state decide (or a wealthy state decides)" in premise iv.