Lara Buchak, Berkeley - Inequality and Relative Priority

In the philosophical literature concerning distributive justice and the way in which inequality matters, there are currently three main contenders: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism.  However, there is a fourth alternative, which we might call relative prioritarianism.  Relative prioritarianism holds that benefits to the worst off matter more than benefits to the best off, because they are worse off in a relative sense, but not because inequality has intrinsic disvalue.  Drawing on a parallel debate in decision theory about why risk matters, I make a case for thinking that this fourth alternative captures the way in which inequality matters.  I then explore the prospects for justifying this position both formally and philosophically.