Footnotes (56)



Slouching Towards Equality

Christopher J. Peters

University of Baltimore - School of Law

May 1999

Iowa Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 4, 1999

Drawing on his work in two previous articles, Christopher Peters contends that uncertainty about substantive moral norms cannot justify a presumption of equal treatment. Arguments for equal treatment in the face of uncertainty are types of consequentialist claims; they are not claims of what Peters calls prescriptive equality, that is, for treating likes alike merely because they are alike. Peters contends that the consequentialist case for equal treatment as a response to uncertainty fails in two respects. First, it fails to demonstrate that equal treatment is likely to be a more satisfactory response to moral uncertainty than unequal treatment. Second, it is logically incoherent because it simultaneously relies upon and denies the possibility of confidence in moral judgment. Peters concludes that no valid case can be made for defaulting to equal treatment in the face of moral uncertainty.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

Keywords: moral norms, equal treatment, prescriptive equality, consequentialist claims, moral uncertainty, unequal treatment, nonegalitarian justice, epistemic asymmetry

JEL Classification: K19, K39

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 1, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Peters, Christopher J., Slouching Towards Equality (May 1999). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 4, 1999. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1480819 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1480819

Contact Information

Christopher J. Peters (Contact Author)
University of Baltimore - School of Law ( email )
1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
United States
410-837-4509 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://law.ubalt.edu
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 346
Downloads: 22
Footnotes:  56