Prioritarianism
Encyclopedia
Prioritarianism or the Priority View is a view within ethics
and political philosophy
that holds that the goodness of an outcome is a function of overall well-being across all individuals with extra weight given to worse-off individuals. Prioritarianism thus resembles utilitarianism
. Indeed, like utilitarianism
, prioritarianism is a form of aggregative consequentialism
; however, it differs from utilitarianism
in that it does not rank outcomes solely on the basis of overall well-being.
The term "Prioritarianism" was coined by moral philosopher Larry Temkin
, widely considered to be one of the worlds' leading authorities on equality and egalitarian theory, in an effort to explicate the theory's non-egalitarian form. Richard Arneson
, a proponent of the view, offers the following precise formulation:
Like utilitarians, prioritarians believe we ought to maximize moral value or goodness, with the proviso that the latter consists in more than just overall well-being. Prioritarianism says that benefits to the worse off matter more than benefits to the better off.
and prioritarianism, imagine a two-person society: its only members are Jim and Pam. Jim has an extremely high level of well-being, is rich, and lives a blissed-out existence. Pam, by contrast, has an extremely low
level of well-being, is in extreme poverty, living a hellish existence. Now imagine that we have some free resources (say, $10,000) that we may distribute to the members of this society as we see fit. Under normal circumstances, due to the diminishing marginal utility of money, the $10,000 will generate more well-being for Pam than it will for Jim.
Thus, under normal circumstances, a utilitarian would recommend giving the resources to Pam. However, imagine that Jim, for whatever reason, although already filthy rich and very well-off, would gain just as much well-being by receiving the $10,000 as would Pam. Now, since it makes no
difference in terms of overall well-being who gets the $10,000, utilitarians would say it makes no difference at all who gets the $10,000. Prioritarians, by contrast, would say that it is better to benefit Pam, the worse off individual.
when it comes to these kinds of cases, especially because of the prioritarian's emphasis on compassion
.
It is also arguably more consistent with common sense than radical forms of egalitarianism
that only value equality. Such a view might say that if the only way to achieve equality is by bringing Jim down from 110 to -73, then we ought to do this. Prioritarianism does not accord any intrinsic value
to equality of well-being across individuals, and would not regard a move toward a more equal distribution of well-being as better if the worse off did not benefit. See Derek Parfit
's seminal paper Equality and Priority for further discussion.
In addition to having potential advantages over utilitarianism
and radical egalitarianism
(as noted above), prioritarianism also avoids some putatively embarrassing implications of a related view, the maximin principle (also note Rawls
's difference principle). The maximin principle ranks outcomes solely according to the well-being of the worst-off member of a society. It can thus be viewed as an extreme version of prioritarianism. Imagine choosing between two outcomes: In outcome 1, Jim's well-being level is 1; Pam's well-being level is 100; Dwight's well-being level is 100 (one could add an indefinite number of people with indefinitely high well-being levels). In outcome 2, Jim's well-being level is 2; Pam's well-being level is 3; Dwight's well-being level is 3. Many of us would part ways with the maximin principle and judge that outcome 1 is better than outcome 2, despite the fact that the worst-off member (Jim) has a higher level of well-being. See John Harsanyi
's critique of the maximin principle.
, for instance, the Repugnant Conclusion and related objections based on the apparent implausibility of certain trade-offs (e.g., there is some very large number of mild headaches such that it would be worse to bring about these mild headaches than the protracted
and intense torture of an innocent person). There are also objections to quantifying, measuring, or making interpersonal comparisons of well-being, that strike against most if not all forms of aggregative consequentialism, including prioritarianism.
Another objection to prioritarianism concerns how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off. There may be issues of arbitrariness or "sloppy intuitionism
" lurking here—prioritarians are faced with the potentially awkward task of balancing overall well-being against priority. But note that any theory that leaves any room for judgment in particular cases is also susceptible to this kind of objection about sloppiness or arbitrariness. A prioritarian might claim that how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off is something to be worked out in reflective equilibrium
, or that, while we cannot determine weights exactly, there is a range of weights that is acceptable or justifiable.
A utilitarian (or radical egalitarian) might also claim that her theory is more parsimonious than prioritarianism (which values well-being and priority). But a prioritarian might, in response, argue that even a putatively genuinely monistic utilitarianism
like hedonistic utilitarianism
is not fully mechanized (and perhaps not even genuinely monistic) as it still requires judgment, for instance when it comes to balancing various pleasures against various pains.
Ethics
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc.Major branches of ethics include:...
and political philosophy
Political philosophy
Political philosophy is the study of such topics as liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it...
that holds that the goodness of an outcome is a function of overall well-being across all individuals with extra weight given to worse-off individuals. Prioritarianism thus resembles utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
. Indeed, like utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
, prioritarianism is a form of aggregative consequentialism
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct...
; however, it differs from utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
in that it does not rank outcomes solely on the basis of overall well-being.
The term "Prioritarianism" was coined by moral philosopher Larry Temkin
Larry Temkin
' is an American philosopher specializing in normative ethics and political philosophy. His research into equality, practical reason, and the nature of the good has been very influential. His work on the intransitivity of the all things considered better than relation is groundbreaking and...
, widely considered to be one of the worlds' leading authorities on equality and egalitarian theory, in an effort to explicate the theory's non-egalitarian form. Richard Arneson
Richard Arneson
Richard Arneson is an American philosopher specializing in political philosophy who has taught at the University of California, San Diego since 1973. He chaired the department during 1992 - 1996, and served as graduate adviser. In 1996, he also served as visiting professor in the Politics,...
, a proponent of the view, offers the following precise formulation:
Prioritarianism holds that the moral value of achieving a benefit for an individual (or avoiding a loss) is greater, the greater the size of the benefit as measured by a well-being scale, and greater, the lower the person's level of well-being over the course of her life apart
from receipt of this benefit.
Like utilitarians, prioritarians believe we ought to maximize moral value or goodness, with the proviso that the latter consists in more than just overall well-being. Prioritarianism says that benefits to the worse off matter more than benefits to the better off.
Prioritarianism: Distinct from Utilitarianism
To further sharpen the difference between utilitarianismUtilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
and prioritarianism, imagine a two-person society: its only members are Jim and Pam. Jim has an extremely high level of well-being, is rich, and lives a blissed-out existence. Pam, by contrast, has an extremely low
level of well-being, is in extreme poverty, living a hellish existence. Now imagine that we have some free resources (say, $10,000) that we may distribute to the members of this society as we see fit. Under normal circumstances, due to the diminishing marginal utility of money, the $10,000 will generate more well-being for Pam than it will for Jim.
Thus, under normal circumstances, a utilitarian would recommend giving the resources to Pam. However, imagine that Jim, for whatever reason, although already filthy rich and very well-off, would gain just as much well-being by receiving the $10,000 as would Pam. Now, since it makes no
difference in terms of overall well-being who gets the $10,000, utilitarians would say it makes no difference at all who gets the $10,000. Prioritarians, by contrast, would say that it is better to benefit Pam, the worse off individual.
Advantages of Prioritarianism
Prioritarianism does not merely serve as a "tie-breaker" (as in the case above), but it can go against overall utility. Imagine choosing between two outcomes: In outcome 1, Jim's well-being level is 110 (blissful); Pam's is -73 (hellish); overall well-being is 37. In outcome 2, Jim's well-being level is 23; Pam's well-being level is 13; overall well-being is 36. Prioritarians would say that outcome 2 is better or more desirable than outcome 1 despite being lower than outcome 1 in terms of overall well-being. Bringing Pam up by 86 is weightier than bringing Jim down by 87. If we could move from a society described by outcome 1 to one described by outcome 2, we ought to. Prioritarianism is arguably more consistent with commonsense moral thinking than utilitarianismUtilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
when it comes to these kinds of cases, especially because of the prioritarian's emphasis on compassion
Compassion
Compassion is a virtue — one in which the emotional capacities of empathy and sympathy are regarded as a part of love itself, and a cornerstone of greater social interconnection and humanism — foundational to the highest principles in philosophy, society, and personhood.There is an aspect of...
.
It is also arguably more consistent with common sense than radical forms of egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among moral agents, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality...
that only value equality. Such a view might say that if the only way to achieve equality is by bringing Jim down from 110 to -73, then we ought to do this. Prioritarianism does not accord any intrinsic value
Intrinsic value
Intrinsic value can refer to:*Intrinsic value , of an option or stock.*Intrinsic value , of a coin.*Intrinsic value , in ethics and philosophy.*Intrinsic value , in philosophy....
to equality of well-being across individuals, and would not regard a move toward a more equal distribution of well-being as better if the worse off did not benefit. See Derek Parfit
Derek Parfit
Derek Parfit is a British philosopher who specializes in problems of personal identity, rationality and ethics, and the relations between them. His 1984 book Reasons and Persons has been very influential...
's seminal paper Equality and Priority for further discussion.
In addition to having potential advantages over utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
and radical egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among moral agents, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality...
(as noted above), prioritarianism also avoids some putatively embarrassing implications of a related view, the maximin principle (also note Rawls
Rawls
-Education:* Rawls College of Business, a business school at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas-Fictional characters:* Reggie Rawls, Oz character* William Rawls, The Wire character-People:* John Rawls , philosopher...
's difference principle). The maximin principle ranks outcomes solely according to the well-being of the worst-off member of a society. It can thus be viewed as an extreme version of prioritarianism. Imagine choosing between two outcomes: In outcome 1, Jim's well-being level is 1; Pam's well-being level is 100; Dwight's well-being level is 100 (one could add an indefinite number of people with indefinitely high well-being levels). In outcome 2, Jim's well-being level is 2; Pam's well-being level is 3; Dwight's well-being level is 3. Many of us would part ways with the maximin principle and judge that outcome 1 is better than outcome 2, despite the fact that the worst-off member (Jim) has a higher level of well-being. See John Harsanyi
John Harsanyi
John Charles Harsanyi was a Hungarian-Australian-American economist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner....
's critique of the maximin principle.
Objections to Prioritarianism
Objections to prioritarianism include many of the standard objections that adhere to aggregative consequentialismConsequentialism
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct...
, for instance, the Repugnant Conclusion and related objections based on the apparent implausibility of certain trade-offs (e.g., there is some very large number of mild headaches such that it would be worse to bring about these mild headaches than the protracted
and intense torture of an innocent person). There are also objections to quantifying, measuring, or making interpersonal comparisons of well-being, that strike against most if not all forms of aggregative consequentialism, including prioritarianism.
Another objection to prioritarianism concerns how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off. There may be issues of arbitrariness or "sloppy intuitionism
Intuitionism
In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism , is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans. That is, mathematics does not consist of analytic activities wherein deep properties of existence are revealed and applied...
" lurking here—prioritarians are faced with the potentially awkward task of balancing overall well-being against priority. But note that any theory that leaves any room for judgment in particular cases is also susceptible to this kind of objection about sloppiness or arbitrariness. A prioritarian might claim that how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off is something to be worked out in reflective equilibrium
Reflective equilibrium
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments. Although he did not use the term, philosopher Nelson Goodman introduced the method of reflective equilibrium...
, or that, while we cannot determine weights exactly, there is a range of weights that is acceptable or justifiable.
A utilitarian (or radical egalitarian) might also claim that her theory is more parsimonious than prioritarianism (which values well-being and priority). But a prioritarian might, in response, argue that even a putatively genuinely monistic utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
like hedonistic utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
is not fully mechanized (and perhaps not even genuinely monistic) as it still requires judgment, for instance when it comes to balancing various pleasures against various pains.