On the presumption of equality

According to the presumption of equality, cases should be presumed to be similar when it is not known whether they are similar or different. When an allocative agent is unaware either of the appropriate distributive criterion or people’s relevant features (or both) and she cannot postpone the allocation, then she should distribute goods equally. I explore the nature and justification of the presumption of equality and bring out how commentators have confused it with the claim that all people are relevantly similar and therefore deserve similar treatment, unless there is a specific reason for different treatment. The claim of prima facie equality concerns substantive criteria of justice and should not be confused with the presumption of equality. I will also argue that in some cases, an allocative agent can easily justify the use of the presumption of equality and equal distribution by referring to the relative costs of potential errors. However, I conclude with a discussion of the overall significance of the presumption of equality by considering cases that reveal some important limitations on its use. </p

"Actual" does not imply "feasible"

The familiar complaint that some ambitious proposal is infeasible naturally invites the following response: Once upon a time, the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of women seemed infeasible, yet these things were actually achieved. Presumably, then, many of those things that seem infeasible in our own time may well be achieved too and, thus, turn out to have been perfectly feasible after all. The Appeal to History, as we call it, is a bad argument. It is not true that if some desirable state of affairs was actually achieved, then it was feasible that it was achieved. “Actual” does not imply “feasible,” as we put it. Here is our objection. “Feasible” implies “not counterfactually fluky.” But “actual” does not imply “not counterfactually fluky.” So, “actual” does not imply “feasible.” While something like the Flukiness Objection is sometimes hinted at in the context of the related literature on abilities, it has not been developed in any detail, and both premises are inadequately motivated. We offer a novel articulation of the Flukiness Objection that is both more precise and better motivated. Our conclusions have important implications, not only for the admissible use of history in normative argument, but also by potentially circumscribing the normative claims that are applicable to us