Outcomes, Reasons, and Equality

Christopher J. Peters

University of Baltimore - School of Law

October 2000

Boston University Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, 2000

In this article, Christopher Peters responds to arguments made by Kenneth Simons in The Logic of Egalitarian Norms, 80 B.U. L. REV. 693 (2000), in which Professor Simons defends the normative value of equal treatment against Peters’s earlier critiques. Peters first explains and justifies his attack on deontological rather than consequentialist motivations for equal treatment. He then articulates a difference between two distinct conceptions of “treatment”: an outcome-focused and an holistic conception. Peters argues that the holistic conception must be accepted by anyone who defends a deontological theory of equality. Peters then explains how certain of Simons’s arguments in defense of deontological equality reflect either a mistaken reliance on an outcome-focused conception of treatments or a misunderstanding of the implications of an holistic conception.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 33

Keywords: Kenneth Simons, equal treatment, normative values, deontological motivations, consequentialist motivations, holistic conception, outcome-focused conception

JEL Classification: K00

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 31, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Peters, Christopher J., Outcomes, Reasons, and Equality (October 2000). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, 2000. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1483176 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1483176

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: 546
Downloads: 15