Abstract

This study explores the evaluative spaces in which egalitarians work. Beginning with John Rawls' theory of political justice (i.e., justice as fairness), the thesis examines critiques of Rawls' scheme of primary goods by Amartya Sen and G.A. Cohen and their respective egalitarian evaluative spaces--capabilities and midfare. It is suggested that these spaces are helpful extensions of Rawls' scheme, however, they are not decisive against it. Contrary to Sen's and Cohen's critiques, Rawls' theory and its scheme of primary goods should not be understood as a resource based egalitarian theory. Rather, a Rawlsian egalitarian evaluation will include resource, welfare and capability or midfare considerations. Finally, it is intimated that an approach which remains broad rather than focusing on one egalitarian target will be the most helpful in facing inequalities in the world.