Northeastern Political Science Association

A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation Author(s): Robert Mayer Reviewed work(s): Source: Polity, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2002), pp. 337-354 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235395 . Accessed: 20/03/2012 08:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.

http://www.jstor.org

Number3 * Spring 2002 Polity * VolumeXXXIV,

A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation

Robert Mayer Loyola UniversityChicago Whatsorts of transactions should count as exploitative? Marxian theoryhas tendedto monopolizeanalysisof the phenomenon,but thispaperoffersan alternativeaccountof exploitation derivedfromMichael Walzer's theoryof distributive as because justice. Thattheorylends itselfto restatement a theoryof exploitation the principaldistributive injusticecomplex equalityaims to combat is "dominance,"whichconsistsin takingadvantageof one resourcein orderto gain others with whichthe firsthas no intrinsic connection.Thisis fundamentally conceptof a exploitation.Having reformulatedcomplex equality as a general theory of I rivals.Bothare shown exploitation, then contrastit with its liberaland Marxian to be species of "simple As equality." a result,they often renderincorrect judgmentsaboutwhethera giventransaction shouldbe deemedexploitative. Robert Mayer is AssociateProfessorof Political Scienceat LoyolaUniversity Visit webpage at http://www.homepages.luc.edu/-rmayer. his Chicago. MichaelWalzer'sSpheres of Justice remains a puzzle to commentators. described its authoras an egalitarian Although by theoryof distributive justice,severalcriticshave arguedthatcomplex equalityis neitherstrictly nor egalitarian an becausecomplex integrated theoryof distributive justice.Itis not strictly egalitarian does notseek to equalizea universal metriclikewelfareor resources.' And equality it is not an integrated of theoryof distributive justicebecausethe principles which consists"onlyidentify some side constraints acceptable on districomplexequality butionalprofiles"; these principles not and cannotfullydeterminetheirown "do Govert Hartogh therefore den has concludedthatcomplexequality is application." not so mucha theoryof distributive justiceas "averyeffective of doingapplied way ethicswithouttheory."2 Butthereis another Walzer's in way to interpret project Spheresof Justicethat value.Inthis paperI arguethatcomplexequality mightsuggestits truetheoretical can be understood a general as The distributive theoryof exploitation. fundamental Walzer aims to combat is "dominance," which consistsin takingadvaninjustice tage of one resourcein orderto gain otherswith which the firsthas no intrinsic connection."Taking however,is merelya synonymfor "exploitation." advantage,"
1. Govert Hartogh, Architectonic Michael den "The of Walzer's of Political 27 Theory Justice," Theory, at (August1999):491-522, 511-14.See also Richard in Arneson, "Against 'Complex' Equality," Pluralism, and eds. Miller Michael and Justice, Equality, David Walzer Oxford (Oxford: 226-52. Press,1995), University 2. den Hartogh, "ArchitectonicWalzer's of 516-18. Theory,"

THEORY EXPLOITATION OF 338 A WALZERIAN

of In everyinstancethe injustices Walzer identifies resultfromthe exploitation an in question.His that is somehow extrinsicto the distributive sphere advantage and a then,is fundamentallytheoryof exploitation, it can be theoryof dominance, in termsof thisconcept. restated explicitly the in I provide restatement thispaperand thencontrast complex-egalitarthat I rivals. show thatthe comwith its liberaland Marxian ian theoryof exploitation occupiesa middlepositionbetweenthe two and so can approach plex-egalitarian As accountof exploitation. such, it social-democratic be viewed as a distinctively than to transactions be exploitative does the librangeof capitalist judgesa greater as of but eralstandard, it is not as sweepingin its indictment asset inequality Marxand betweencomplexequality its rivals, The ian theory. difference however,is not for standards what Whiletheydo set different as so much quantitative qualitative. theoriesof exploitation and countsas an exploitative exchange,the liberal Marxian dubs "simpleequality." are both species of what Walzer Theyinsiston the equalof takesas its standard izationof some metricoutcome,whereascomplexequality at On formof equality. thisbasisit arrives different a fairness nonmetric judgments of then,does aboutthe legitimacy varioussortsof distributions. Complexequality, but as egalitarian, the outcomeit seeks to equalizeis not divisqualify authentically are I ibleintoshares.Toanticipate, willshow thatdistributions deemedexploitative withingroupsis not sustained. when statusequality by complexequality in the The firstsection of the papermaps analytically concept of exploitation order to facilitatecomparisonof differenttheories. The second part restates The as Walzer's theoryof complexequality a generaltheoryof exploitation. third liberaland with representative the sectioncontrasts complex-egalitarian approach The theoriesof exploitation. conclusionidentifies Marxian complex equalityas a in exploitation third theory. way

I. The Concept of Exploitation

speaking,to exploitsomethingis to use or take advantageof that Generally In benefitfromthe objectwhichtheyexploitinstrumentally. some Exploiters thing.3 or neutral even positive(example:to is cases this exploitation takento be morally is exploit one's talents),but in other instancesthe exploitation deemed unfair of (example:the exploitation sweatshoplabor).Beforewe can addressthe quesmore is tion of when takingadvantage wrong,however,we must firstdistinguish betweendifferent typesof exploitation. carefully

in see Arneson, "Exploitation,"Encycloto 3. Foran introduction the conceptof exploitation Richard Garland 1: Publishing), 350-52;and Alan Carling, pedia of Ethics,ed. LawrenceBecker,(New York: Press,1998), Academic Chadwick ed. (SanDiego: of in Ethics, Ruth "Exploitation,"Encyclopedia Applied 1:219-32.

Robert Mayer 339

As Robert Goodinpointsout, all cases of exploitation instances situationare of in exploitation s-exploitation) which agentsturnsome favorable (or circumstance in theirsituation environment theiradvantage.4 use one good thingavailor to They ableto themin orderto get another. resourceexploited The of maybe a quality the or agent itselfor an opportunity an inanimate object,or yet anotheragentand its The qualities. latteris the principal objectof concernin exploitation theory,espewhen the exploited cially agentis a personor groupof persons.Person-exploitation but (or p-exploitation), then, is a specialcase of s-exploitation is usefullydistinguishedfromit because of our obviousmoralconcernabout people usingothers as meansto theirown advantage. contrast, the literature exploitation in on mere By is usually treated morally as (in s-exploitation whichno personis directly exploited) As is unproblematic. we shallsee, thatassumption challenged the complex-egalby itarian approach. involvesone personor groupgainingat the expense of another. P-exploitation Not all instancesof such gain,however,count as p-exploitation. you exploitmy If carelessnessin a game of chess in orderto take my queen, you have certainly gainedat my expensebutyou havenot exploitedme. P-exploitation occursin only or transactions. mainlocus of p-exploitation The is exchangerelationships bilateral the marketplace, non-market but if exchangesmayalso entailp-exploitation there is gain at another'sexpense.Forexample,children exploittheirparents(and can vice versa) even if no money changes hands.The characteristic indicator an of transaction disproportionalitythe distribution benefitsand buris in of exploitative dens:the exploited assumedisproportionate burdens the benefitreceived, for while much at littlecost. Note, however,thatthe exploitedpartyusually exploiters gain as gainssomethingfromthe transaction well, and mayin factgainmoreutility than the exploiter.5 the alternative unemployment, If is sweatedlabormay gain greater utilityfroma low-wagejob than an exploitative employergains from the profits extractedfrom that labor.These workersare nonethelessexploitedbecause the has of in employer takenadvantage the unequalrelationship orderto gainprofit at theirexpense (through theirsweatedwork). Inordinary is usagep-exploitation a "moralized" concept-it is wrongby definition.To exploita personis to takeunfairadvantage thatperson;the actionnecof violatesa normof justice.6 different But theories judgeanygiventranswill essarily

4. Robert a Goodin, and a in "ExploitingSituation ExploitingPerson," Modern Theories Exploitation, of ed. Andrew Reeve(London: at SagePublications, 1987),166-200, 166-67. 5. See AlanWertheimer, Princeton (Princeton: Exploitation Press, 1996),223; and Allen University Wood,"Exploitation," Philosophy Policy,12 (Summer Social and at 1995):136-58, 148. 6. On p-exploitation a moralized as a concept see Goodin,"Exploiting Situation," 167, 182;and 6. Wertheimer, theorists Exploitation, SomeMarxian is denythatp-exploitation unfair definition, that but by technical is at oddswith ordinary conception of usage.Forthe purposes thispaperan exchangemustbe deemedunfair it to countas a case of p-exploitation. a Marxist for For of as interpretation p-exploitation neutral Wood,"Exploitation." see morally

340 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

actionas exploitative noton the basisof a standard fairness is alwaysegalor of that in itarian some way. Thisstandsto reason,for p-exploitation made possibleby is some inequalitybetween individuals groups which is deemed illegitimate.7 or Thosewho exploitotherstakeadvantage an initialinequality, of which theyought not to do. As a result,the exploitedget less thanthey shouldfromthe exchange. is when the contending Fairness only achieved are parties made equal,by eliminatTheories exploitation of with regard differ, however, advantage. ing the illegitimate or Mostdo not conto the typesof advantages inequalities deemed unexploitable. the but demn everysortof inequality rather singleout a specificformthattriggers In of or theoriesof exploitation, perception p-exploitation unfairness.8 comparing for the its that the crucialtaskis to identify formof equality establishes benchmark assessmentof transactions. must be distinBeforewe turnto some examples,two basictypes of equality can or is a comparative concept,butcomparisons be quantitative guished.Equality withrelative sharesof divisible is concerned goodsQuantitative equality qualitative. thingsof which one mayhavemoreor less. Goodsof thissort (money,power,welcan betweenparties be assessed.Let in fare)serveas metrics termsof whichequality about In call us therefore thisbrandmetricequality. the debateamongegalitarians are of what,"Rawls, Cohen,andArneson allmetric egalitariDworkin, Sen, "equality metric aboutwhichparticular goodoughtto be equalized. ans, thoughtheydisagree are of Mosttheories exploitation also basedon a metricformof equality. Divisible goods, however,are not the only sortof thingthatcan be equalized. one status(in the sense of placein a hierarchical Consider structure): cannothave or lower.Statusis a positional more or less statusbut only higher good; it can be consumable into levelbut it cannotbe divided discrete, sharedwith othersat one's is are unequal,but the inequality not metric. shares.Highand low statusgroups in positional.As I shalldemonstrate the Instead,let us call this type of inequality is its theoryof exploitation an exampleof posiand next section,complexequality tionalegalitarianism. are theoriesof exploitation, contrast, typically and Liberal Marxian premised by Let of exampleof libon a metricstandard equality. us beginwith a representative account of exploitationin the market.9 eral exploitationtheory: DavidMiller's

all is 7. As WillKymlicka observes,"exploitation one of the manyformsof inequality, of whichare An Political See of Philosophy: Introassessedby a deeperandbroader principle equality." Contemporary Clarendon Press,1990),180. duction(Oxford: whichholdsthat justice, theoryof communist 8. Theone exceptionto thisruleis Arthur DiQuattro's as are Individuals simply equalwelfare an outcome, of guaranteed no inequality anysortmaybe exploited. and Justice," assets.See "Liberal or of Theory the Ideaof Communist regardless theiralienable inalienable 83-96. ScienceReview,92 (March 1998): Political American For 149-65. two simiof Theories Exploitation, in in 9. David Miller, "Exploitation the Market," Modern 94 of Ethics, (January "A see Steiner, Liberal of theories exploitation Hillel Theory Exploitation," larliberal 230-35. and 1984):225-41; Wertheimer, Exploitation,

Robert Mayer 341

Miller's becauseit affirms basicinstitutions a capitalist the of theoryis liberal econconsistsin deviations froma purecapitalist situation. omy; here exploitation The benchmark termsof which Miller in assesses fairnessis equilibrium price,when is competition perfect.Bargaining power (a metricgood) mustbe equal,such that neither can therefore arisesdue to asymmetries in party dictateprice.P-exploitation when the advantaged power or information, partycould offer to exchangeat a lower price but deliberately chooses not to in orderto exploitan advantageous marketposition.As Miller the explains,the key "iswhetherthe situation provides beneficiaries any freedomof maneuver.... Exploitation an activerelationwith is mustactually something deservethe label."'0 do to Wherecomship:an exploiter becomes impossibleon thisstandard petitionis robust,however,p-exploitation of fairness. Hencecompetitive mustbe deemednonexploitative, ifthe even capitalism assetsof parties grossly are unequal. Marxian theories exploitation, course,challenge judgment. of of that variaMany tionsof the basic Marxian havebeen proffered, we will consideronly but position one:JohnRoemer's model.1' benchmark Marxian His for property-relations exploitationis the equalization alienable of assets.Unlessparties withan equalshareof begin suchassets(a metric betweenthemresult p-exploitation. in Those good),exchanges who possess more can takeadvantage the inequality gain at the expenseof of to those with less. This is true even if competition perfect.Hence for Roemerpis is not necessarily activerelationship. resultsfundamentally an It exploitation from structural Onthisview,competitive is than inequalities. capitalism no less exploitative is and monopolycapital.In both exploitation pervasive systemicsince capitalism is founded the unequal on distribution alienable of assets(wage-labor). Whilesubstantively liberal Marxian and theories exploitation forof are different, similar. Eachevaluates transactions termsof a metricstandard equality; in mally of fairness onlyachieved is when parties possessequalsharesof some divisible good. Fromthe complex-egalitarian to perspective, however,thisapproach the phenomenon of exploitation too simple. is

II. A General Theory of Exploitation

Michael Walzer's to "Although a Spheresof Justiceattempts advance democratic socialistvisionof justice," AlanWertheimer "itsindexcontainsno referobserves,

10. Miller, in 160. "Exploitation the Market," 11. JohnRoemer, General A of and Theory Exploitation Class(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982);Free to Lose:An Introduction Marxist to Economic Harvard Philosophy(Cambridge: University Press,1988);and Egalitarian Perspectives: Economics(Cambridge: Essaysin Philosophical Cambridge Press,1994),13-1 1. Roemer's 1 workhassparked wide-ranging University a debatein Marxian circles about thenature exploitation, hisversion thebenchmark nonetheless of but of is of representative thebasicMarxianapproach.

342 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

ence to exploitation."'2 is indeedthe case, but ifwe focuson the conceptitself, This and not merelythe word that usuallydesignatesthe concept, it turns out that in concernedwith exploitation its various Spheresof Justiceis almostexclusively in Walzer identifies the book resultfromthe illegitimate forms.Allof the injustices of exploitation situationsor persons.The argumentcan thereforebe restatedin And structure. termsof exploitation theorywithoutdoingviolenceto itsconceptual we in anycase, as Jon Elster justice, pointsout, "for giventheoryof distributive any In to can definea notionof exploitation go with it."'3 the theoryof complexequalis the be shouldprobably reversed: argument in the ity,however,the relationship fromwhich we can then deduce a firstinstancea generaltheoryof exploitation notionof distributive justice. does not beginby tellingus how to becauseWalzer is Therelationship reversed in is the theoryof complexequality framed termsof distribute Instead, goodsjustly. we are to avoidin the course of distributing the principal goods: domiinjustice a is achieved,in otherwords,not positively, applying nance. Distributive by justice of the elimination of distribution, only negatively, but through generalprinciple dominancein all its forms.AsWalzer explainsat the end of the preface,his idealis simplya society"freefromeverysortof domination."'4 is or use Walzer's of the term"dominance" "domination" unusual.It is not the for of command." "authoritative of Weber'sHerrschaft, Rather, power equivalent a way of usingsocialgoods thatisn'tlimited their describes "dominance Walzer by a intrinsic (10-11).Thespecificformof this usage is conversion; "domimeanings" into converted allsortsof otherthings" (12). nantgood is moreor less systematically who ifthe individuals haveit,because calls Walzer "agooddominant More precisely, a theyhaveit,cancommand wide rangeof othergoods"(10).Butthisis onlyanother condominance Walzerian of the exploitation. way of describing phenomenon unfair in sists in usingone advantage illegitimately orderto gain others.The examplehe and the offersto illustrate abstract conceptis a good thatis "scarce widelyneeded, Thosewho monopolize likewaterin the desert." goodsof thissortcan then"exploit come to thosewho havetheone bestthing. so theirdominance" that"all goodthings of (11).Taking Possessthatone, andthe otherscome in train" advantage a monopocase to in listicsituation order enrichoneselfis a paradigmatic of exploitation. whichagainsuggests A synonymfordominancein Walzer's theoryis "tyranny," commandthatis not in fact required this novel of by a relationship authoritative

7. 12. Wertheimer, Exploitation, in on Theoryof A versusRoemer: Comment 'New Directions the Marxian "Roemer 13. Jon Elster, at & 363-74, 364. 1982): Politics Society,11 (Winter and Exploitation Class'," BasicBooks, and (NewYork: A 14. Michael Walzer, Spheresof Justice: Defenseof Pluralism Equality The to 1983),xvi.References thisbookarecitedin the textof the paperin parentheses. theoryof complex at (NotreDame:UniMoral and in is Argument HomeandAbroad developed Thick Thin: equality further of versity NotreDamePress,1994).

Robert Mayer 343

Late tells us that "intermsof the moraleconomy vocabulary. in the book Walzer which I havebeen describing, tyrant a personwho exploitsa mastergood to the is master menandwomen around the him"(279;emphasis added).Hereexploitation in the sense of taking is as advantage explicitly acknowledged the core elementin the concept of dominance.Tyrants, those who achievedominance,are guilty or of fundamentally unfair exploitation. ForWalzer dominanceis a moralized that concept. It refersto exploitation is unfair. Hencenot everyinstanceof takingadvantage countsas dominance.Dominance resultsonly where individuals groups "convert or one good into another when there is no intrinsic connectionbetween the two" (19). P,utanotherway, dominanceinvolvesthe exploitation an extrinsicadvantage. of This is a purely formaldefinition, what counts as an extrinsicadvantage be specifiedin for can of can manydifferent ways. Indeed,everystandard unfair exploitation be restated as a principleof extrinsicality. example, Roemer'sbenchmarkholds that a For shareof alienable assetsis an extrinsic To greater advantage. describean advantage as extrinsic, is violatesa theory'spretherefore, merelyto say thatits exploitation ferred of fairness. principle The crucialquestion,then, is what Walzer's standard extrinsicality Given of is. his self-proclaimed we might assume there is no generalprinciple of pluralism, unfairnessin Walzer'stheory of exploitation,but several commentatorshave this of recently challenged assumption. Theypointout thata principle equalmemto play a regulative role in each of the spheres of justice.'5In bershipappears Walzer's must the of words,distributions "uphold underlying equality membership" Thisis achieved when socialexclusionis prevented abolished.'6 (84). or Individuals must not be allowedto falldown in any spherein such a way as to renderthem internal exiles or second-classmembers.The prohibition social exclusionis a of of Individuals entitled equalstanding each sphere; are to principle statusequality. in theirmembership mustbe sustained. exploitation anyadvantage underThe of that cutsthisstanding illegitimate, then participants not standat the same level is for do and become unequalin termsof status.Walzer's concernis positional, the very as of terminology dominancesuggests.Exploiters dominate;they stand higherthan theirvictims, who are not at the same level.Exploiters possess more of some also is resource,butmetricinequality not necessarily indicator exploitation this an of in theory.One can possess less than othersyet nonethelessstandat an equal level

15. On the principle equalmembership den Hartogh, of see "ArchitectonicWalzer's of 494Theory," van 95; Robert derVeen,"The Citizen: Equal On in Adjudicating of Membership Walzer's Theory Justice," British Journal Political of Science,29 (April and 1999):225-58; David in Miller, "Introduction,"Pluralism, and Justice, Equality, The 1-16,at 12-16. principle to in appears be acknowledged Walzer "Response," by inPluralism, and at Justice, Equality, 281-97, 287. 16. On socialexclusion the indicator statusinequality Walzer, as of see "Exclusion, and Injustice, the Democratic State," Dissent,40 (Winter 55-64. 1993):

THEORY EXPLOITATION OF 344 A WALZERIAN

must resultin with them. In complex equalityquantitative (metric)inequalities becomes unfair. beforethe taking-advantage inequality qualitative (positional) DavidMiller equalizesstatus:"Ina societywhich agreesthatcomplex equality of realizescomplexequality, people enjoya basic equality statuswhich overrides in theirunequalstanding particular spheresof justicesuch as moneyand power."17 Note, however,that on this accountstatusequalityis achievedoverallbut not in of that each particular instead, statusequality some sortmust sphere.I am arguing, the in be sustained everydistribution; assessmentis made sphereby sphere.The does not conformto a in natureof statusequality each case, however, substantive docWalzer's but globalprinciple dependson the meaningof the good in question. We entersthe theoryhere (6-10).18 must recognize trineof sharedunderstandings associfromequalstatusin political will thatequalstatusin the market be different of ations,and thismeans thatsome goods may be takenadvantage in one sphere but not another. Wealth,for example,may be s-exploitedin the marketwithout if the participants beginas statusequals,but in the politymoneyis always injustice of because the commodification politicalinfluencenecesan extrinsic advantage citizens. the undercuts equalstatusof democratic sarily the approach A seriesof exampleswill illustrate logicof the complex-egalitarian in Let to exploitation. us beginwith the one justmentioned, exploitation the politibut is cal sphere.Walzer a staunchadvocateof democracy nonethelessholdsthat of politicalequalitydoes not requireall unequaladvanthe democratic principle in processto be fair.In a democracy, tages be unexploitable orderforthe political an equal power.Afterall, are guaranteed equal vote but not necessarily citizens remindsus, the citizen's Walzer of aim is to win-that is, to exerciseunequaledpower.In pursuit this aim, he have.Theymakegood account whatever andhis friends they advantages exploit loyalskill competence;theyplayon party of theirrhetorical and organizational of recogof old struggles; seek the endorsement readily ties and memories they All honoredindividuals. thisis entirely legitimate.... (309) nizedor publicly abilitiesto win votes is an example or one's rhetorical organizational Exploiting do because these advantages not undercutthe status of legitimate s-exploitation on to insistthat Walzer of goes equality citizens.But

at 197-225, 206. and Justice, Equality, in 17. David Miller, Equality," Pluralism, "Complex than has understandings" been subjectto morecriticism anyotherfacetof 18. Theappealto "shared position. to I the theoryof complexequality. will not rehashthisdebatehereor attempt defendWalzer's Walzer's at vulnerable this point,I thinkit is stillworthreformulating Evenif we findcomplexequality of discussion theissue, mostcareful For of as a theory exploitation. Walzer's to distributive justice approach Sen and Nussbaum Amartya of in and see "Objectivity SocialMeaning," The Quality Life,eds. Martha Clarendon Press,1993),165-77. (Oxford:

Robert Mayer 345

Itwould not be legitimate if some citizenswere able to win theirpolitical ... becausetheywere personally or struggles wealthyor hadwealthybackers powerfulfriends relatives the existinggovernment. and in Thereare some inequalities thatcan,and othersthatcannot,be exploited the courseof politicalactivin ity. (309;emphasisadded) of or Taking advantage unequalwealthin orderto monopolizethe discussion buy influence constitutes unfair and in no s-exploitation results dominance. Although one is directly when moneyis allowedto distort political the p-exploited process,those withmoregainat the expenseof theirasset-poor who arevictims this of opponents, The s-exploitation. latter lesspowerthantheyshouldbecausethecompetition get has become unfair. Walzerclaims that in democratic politics"thewellbornand the makewhatareproperly calledextrinsic wealthy claims,whichdon'tlinkup withthe socialmeaning power"(285).Thisis becausethe exploitation theseadvantages of of undercuts standingof the disadvantaged political the as equals in a way that the of does not. It is one thingto win a political exploitation unequalrhetorical ability becauseyou area betterdebater another prevail but to becauseonlyyou argument can afford accessto the media.Thecommodification powerin democratic of politics is unfair becauseit renders those with less wealtheffectively second-class citizens, entitled votebutsubstantively to deniedtheopportunity competeforinfluto formally ence on an equalbasis.Their statusas political is thereby undercut. equals A second exampleof unfairexploitation straddlesthe line between the economic and political that spheres.Countries recruit guest workersgrantadmission and job opportunities foreignunskilled to labor.Froma complex-egalitarian perconstitute becauseadmissionand employspectivethese programs p-exploitation ment are tradedin exchangeforthe rightto claimcitizenship acquirevoice in and the polity(52-61). hostcountry The bankson the needinessof foreign laborin order to drivea hardbargain whichan entitlement is normally in that inalienable cit(the of izenshipowed to residents the state) is allowedto be alienated thisvulneraby ble group.Citizens the hostcountry of because gainat the expenseof guestworkers to theyacquiresubjection the polityfromthisgroupof residents withoutthe democraticcompensationof equal politicalrightswhich they themselvesenjoy.The dominanceis made possibleby the unequalstatusof the partiesas contractors. Althoughformallyequal, substantively they are not because prospectiveguest workersusuallyfind themselvesin desperatecircumstances that undercuttheir to or offers.Their capacity bargain to refuseexploitative consentto the termsof the offercannottherefore acceptedas sufficiently be to voluntary countas an exchange between statusequals (58). Hence contractsof this sort must be blocked;if outsidersare to be admitted residents(andnot merelyas tourists, as students, visiting mustbe accorded standard etc.),they the of to compensation subjection the statethe rightto become a citizenaftera reasonableprobationary periodhas elapsed. Thisis the "minimum wage"of political subjection.

346 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

Walzer "As pointsout thatguestworkersarevictimsof a doubleexploitation: a constitutea disenfranchised an exploitedor class. Theyare typically group,they classas well, andtheyareexploited oppressed leastin partbecause or at oppressed for (59). incapableof organizing theyare disenfranchised, effectively self-defense" are whichbuys Putanother way,guestworkers first p-exploited the hostcountry, by theirpoliticalrightsin exchange for admission,and this in turn makes possible in of who takeadvantage theirdefenselessness intensep-exploitation employers, by Guestworkersareusually orderto maximizeprofits. sweatshopemployeesor their an exploitedgroup.Whatmakespossiblethe dominanceof equivalent, obviously in sweatshoplabor,however,is not the disparity assets perse betweencapitaland Walzer in in laborbut theirdisparity statusas contractors the market. arguesthat an "whatgoes on in the marketshould at least approximate exchangebetween of identity equals (a free exchange)"(120). Thisrequiresnot a simple-egalitarian level of assetsbut only possessionby both parties some satisfactory of assetssuch The straits. aim shouldbe thatneitheris in desperate need. So long as they of constraints physical to freepeoplefromthe immediate for available everysortof hardwork, abased, are unfree,theyare immediately as it were, by anticipation. powerless,alwaysinsecure,theyconstitute Hungry, Oncethey havealternatives will rally "thereservearmyof the proletariat." they and say No. (167) the of Thisis the aspiration the welfarestate,which "underwrites sphereof money without that when it guarantees men and women will neverbe forcedto bargain are bornof desperation the for resources the verymeans of life"(121). Exchanges violatethe becausethese transactions in the market of unfair standard exploitation at The to internal thissphere.'9 threshold whichthatprinof principle statusequality or cannotbe statedobjectively once and forall because however, ciple is satisfied, is (102). A SocialDemocrat "themeaningof desperation alwaysopen to dispute" an and construct extensivesystemof communalprothreshold would set the high with betweenparties contracts visionin orderto achieveit,butabovethatthreshold or violatecomplex equality resultin dominance.Since unequalassets would not betweenthemwouldno longerbe is neither inequalities party needy,the remaining withas a realmof statusequalsandso couldbe s-exploited to extrinsic the market out injustice. of the theoryof One lastexamplewill illustrate breadth the complex-egalitarian one maintains of the observesthat"theUnitedStatescurrently Walzer exploitation. a world"(84).As a result, in shabbier systemsof communalprovision the Western

Institution, DC: The and (Washington, Brookings 19See Arthur Okun, Equality Efficiency: BigTradeoff 1975),19-22.

Robert Mayer 347

levelof p-exploitation occursin the market still since some contractors significant remainneedyand thus exploitable. this groupis also a victimof anotherform But of exploitation preciselybecause the scope of communalprovisionis restricted. Walzer's which to a considerable extentremains exampleis healthcare provision, a commodityin America. Healthcare providers to exploitthis circumstance withhold servicefromthose who cannotaffordto pay,thus gainingat theirexpense. While they do not p-exploitthe poor or uninsured, commodification care the of undercuts statusof the disadvantaged membersof the community. the as Those whose basic needs are unmet for want of money become second-classcitizens. Theirmembershipis not sustained(78). Walzerchargesthat "menand women who appropriate sums of money for themselves, vast while needs are stillunmet, act liketyrants, and the of and dominating distorting distribution security welfare" (76). The case is analogousto the problemof money in politics.The solutionin both instances the same:decommodification the good so thatspherical is of status can equality be restored. As these examples suggest, from the complex-egalitarian a perspective great deal of unfairexploitation dominanceremainsin contemporary or America.Pstill but transactions like exploitation occursin the market, it also arisesin political What is more, unfairexploitationis not confined to guest-worker programs. but when individuals groupss-exploit or extrinexchangerelationships also results sic advantages thereby and at the expenseof others,undercutting equaltheir gain assessesthe entireuniverse s-exploitation, of ityof status.Becausecomplexequality and not merelythe narrower of p-exploitation, qualifiesas a general it category Of is theoryof exploitation.20 course,taking of feature human advantage a pervasive existenceand is not necessarily Whatcomplex equality does as a general wrong. the that theoryis to identify generictypeof taking It advantage is unfair. holdsthat a relationship statusinequality not be exploited gainbenefits. of to Whenindimay viduals less of some good thanwe thinktheyshould,thisis becauseequality get of statuswithina spherehas not been sustained.

III. Simple Versus Complex Equality

is Although it p-exploitation butone formof s-exploitation, naturally attracts the attentionbecauseexploiting greatest othersis alwaysdeemedan injustice. Having statedcomplexequality a generaltheoryof exploitation, will now focus more as I on of in carefully its standard p-exploitation orderto sharpen contrast the with rival theories.As statedin the previous of section,the principle statusequality purely is unlessa substantive formal; standard specified,it will be impossibleto come to is

20. Inthissense it is moregeneral thanRoemer's whichdescribes itselfas general theory, becauseit can conceptualize in p-exploitation different See typesof societies. Roemer, General 1. Theory,

348 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

exists for complex equality. GivenWalzer's agreementaboutwhen p-exploitation no of could be identified for pluralism, generalsubstantive principle statusequality in but the entireuniverseof s-exploitation, the same is not true for p-exploitation That type of exploitation particular. alwaystakes the form of an exchange and In a occurswithina specificsphere-the market. thatspherewe can identify subin of text of stantive principle statusequality implicit Walzer's thatsets the standard With the principlein hand, we can then comparethe fairnessin transactions. theoriesof exploitation. with liberal Marxian and assessmentsof complexequality when each memberof society "obtains claimsthatstatusequality DavidMiller the him-or herselfas fundamentally equalof allthe others,and is regarded regards of standard This theirequal."21 is a perceptional by the othersas fundamentally but statusequality, I do not thinkit is the one Walzer adoptsin assessingexchanges. that we Instead, must look for a particular of disadvantage makes groupsor type of once againhis analysis guest-worker Consider individuals programs. exploitable. in Guestworkersare exploitedbecause they begin with a disadvantage the baris gainingprocess,but the disadvantage not a smalleramountof assetsor bargainis the se.22 Rather, disadvantage qualitative: prospective guestworkper ingstrength ers are needy in a way that the host countryis not. Neediness,however,is not like measuredby a fixedstandard baresubsistencebecause "needsare not necesin needinessis calculated (76). Instead, relatively, terms phenomena" physical sarily are thatindividuals needy if they Walzer's of gainsand losses.23 examplessuggest to standto lose much by refusing exchangebut nonethelessgaintoo littlefromthe or transaction paytoo muchforwhattheyget.Thelatter implya threshjudgments belowwhichone mustnot fall(gaintoo little)orabovewhichone old of sufficiency when theytake become p-exploiters Contractors must not rise (paytoo much).24 thatthe otherpartyis needy but theyare not. This of advantage the circumstance differenceis positional,for it places the exploitablein a positionof qualitative the of The appropriate: needinessof dependence. language dominanceis therefore does not obtain. Statusequality dominant. the othermakesthe advantaged party

199. 21. Miller, "Complex Equality," does not applyto "privileged of guests," tells us thathis critique guest-worker 22. Walzer programs even thoughassetequality skills(60).Theyarenot exploitable withscarceandvaluable workers technical does not obtain. betweenthemandthe hostcountry that Arneson a population by 23. I agreewith Richard only guaranteed subsistence the welfarestate to a welfaresocietythataffords baresubsistence a wouldstillbe exploitable capital: "Imagine capitalist by I conditions, wouldwantto on income.Depending further annual eachcitizenin the formof a guaranteed a to who proceedto workforcapitalists obtain a guaranteed subsistence saythatin sucha societyworkers be that morecommodious livingmightyet be exploited, is, theirlabormightplausibly viewedas forced." in statusequality too becauseit sets the threshold low to sustain is Baresubsistence a flawedbenchmark at 91 1981): 202-27, 226. withExploitation?" Ethics, (January See mostsocieties. "What's Wrong in are to 24. According Walzer, exchanges defined termsof "afloor... belowwhichworkdesperate but is of for one (102).A threshold sufficiency implied, what erscannotbidagainst another employment" will countsas sufficiency varyacrosstimeandspace.

Robert Mayer 349

We can now state formally complex-egalitarian the benchmark assessing for neither mustbe needyin the sense described above.Whenneither exchanges: party is needy,the parties statusequalsin the market the illegitimate are and disadvantage thatcauses p-exploitation been removed.Becausethe equality mandatesis has it the is We sharesof positional, benchmark not quantifiable. focus not on divisible some metricgood but on the sharingof a common statuswhere neitherpartyis needy.Ofcourse,therewill be disputesaboutwhen needinessexists;what counts as a largeloss or an insufficient can certainly contested.Butfromthe combe gain the numerical afforded a metric plexegalitarian stanperspective greater precision by dardcomes at a significant cost:the quantitative will with judgments oftenconflict our intuitions aboutwhen exchangesare exploitative. metrics sometimes The will overshoot mark,labeling transaction exploitative the a as when it does not seem to be so, or undershoot and thusmiss important it cases of p-exploitation. moral That is when simple(metric) is of imprecision inevitable equality the standard fairness. Consider Miller's first liberal Its is theoryof exploitation. benchmark equilibrium is indicates prices,when bargaining that strength equal.Buta moment'sreflection market is that cannotoccur.Likewise, deviequilibrium no guarantee p-exploitation ationfromthatequilibrium does not necessarily meanthe disadvantaged is pparty It exploitable. seems thatone can haveless of the metricbutstillhaveenough;conone versely, can havean equalshareyet get less valuefromthe exchangethanone should.Sweatshoplaboris an exampleof the lattercase, when the liberalmetric undershoots mark.Perfectcompetitiondoes not ensure that laborwon't be the sweatedif it entersthe market a needycondition. in Thoughemployers maynot be able to dictatepriceor offergreater wages thantheydo givencompetitive pressure, if laboris abundantand subsistenceinsecure,the workerswill stillbe exploited. down the offerbutwill gaintoo littlein an Theywill havemuch to lose by turning absolutesense. By contrast,the employerwill lose little if the offer is spurned because a reserve army of exploitablelabor is available.In this instance the is Hence liberalexploitation exploitation not activebut structural. theorycannot it, but complex equalitydoes.25Its benchmark fairnessis violated recognize for since the needinessof the disadvantaged has party been exploited. In othercases, however,liberaltheoryactually overshootsthe mark.Consider one of Miller's scenarios:a collectorbuys a masterpiece a yardsalefor a pitat tance.26 Miller claimsthe selleris exploitedbecausethereis an asymmetry inforof obviousthatthis taking-advantage unfair. colmation,but it isn'tintuitively is The lectorclearlyexploitsthe seller'signorance, is the sellerherselfp-exploited? but I don'tthinkso, because her needinesshas not been established. is truethatshe It
25. The liberal benchmark equilibrium of pricesassumesthata competitive market detercorrectly mineswhatindividuals shouldget.Thecase of sweatshop laborillustrates difficulty thisapproach. the with workers receive market the Sweatshop may pricefortheirlaborbutstillnot be paidenough. 26. Miller, in 158. "Exploitation the Market,"

350 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

the gainslittlefromthe exchange,but she does not standto lose a lot by refusing it. will offerand mayin factgainby declining Thecollector, contrast, lose much by to if the offeris rejected. is unlikely say "take or leaveit"and mean it,which is He it as the standard positionof p-exploiters, banking theydo on desperation bargaining to drivethe exchange.On the complex egalitarian standard, then, statusequality of is unfair. obtainsin thiscase and the transaction not therefore Inequalities inforin mationmaybe legitimately exploited the market (theyareallthe time)as longas a the deficitdoes not constitute kindof neediness.27 Marxian also afflictsthe standard Moral approachto exploitation. imprecision is its On Roemer's simple-egalitarian interpretation, benchmark the quintessentially overshootsthe markand conThisstandard of frequently principle asset equality. demns exchanges that do not seem unfair.To see this, we must play one of rational-choice Roemer's games.28 to Roemer'smost valuablecontribution exploitation theoryis his insightthat can of p-exploitation be modeledas a game playedby coalitionsof everytheory for rule agents.Foreach theorywe can specifya withdrawal thatsets the standard wouldbe betteroff withcoalition Ifa whatcountsas p-exploitation.29 subordinate compledrawingfrom the societywith the specifiedpayoff,and the dominating mentwould be worse off, then the firstcoalitionis p-exploited the second.The by one's notion that an rule withdrawal prescribes alternative arrangement "embodies the to and nonexploitative."30 of whatis ethically According Roemer, exit preferable assets.Coalitions is a percapitashareof society'salienable in Marxian theory payoff is Giventhatstandard, less exploitation receiving thanthis payoffare p-exploited. mostwho playthe gamebeginandendwithless in a capitalist economy: pervasive than a per capitashare of capitalassets. All who belong to this overwhelming of. takenunfair are advantage majority therefore a scenarioin consider typical of thisstandard, intuitive Toassess the plausibility3l of The game is concernedwith the distribution labortime and Roemer'swork.
need not entailp-exploitation. in an shows thats-exploiting asymmetry information 27. Wertheimer 234-35. See Exploitation, doubtsaboutthe adehas 28. We will playone of Roemer's games,but note thatWalzer expressed In of to approach the phenomenon exploitation. a briefcommenthe remarks quacyof the game-theoretic at for senseof beingexploited, it saysnothing allabout the to thatRoemer's theory"fails capture concrete alterand hypothetical betweenworkers capitalists.... Onedoesn'tneed ... Roemer's the actualrelations Left what it meansfora workerto be used."See "What's of native,it seems to me, to beginto explain 43-46,at 44. 1985): Reviewof Books,32 (21 November New Marx?" York 194-96. General 29. Roemer, Theory, 40. 30. Roemer, Perspectives, Egalitarian For in of standards exploitation lightof ourintuitions. example, himselfassessesdifferent 31. Roemer "shared Some Marxists, calls these intuitions understandings." 38. see Egalitarian Perspectives, Walzer For becauseof the problemof falseconsciousness. example,see Jeffrey however, rejectthis approach and SocialTheory Practo is aboutHowExploitation Defined? Reply JohnRoemer," Reiman, Worry "Why to it But judgments, is difficult see how we can 1990):101-13. ifwe don'tappealto intuitive tice, 16(Spring as of assessallegedexamples p-exploitation unfair.

Robert Mayer 351

leisurein a hypothetical In economy.32 thissocietythereare two basicmethodsof one production: requiring laborbut no capital(the farm)and the otherboth only laborand capital(the factory). Individuals assumedto desireonlysubsistence; are once thisis securedtheyprefer leisureto anyfurther Subsistence consumption. can be achieved the farmwithsixteenhoursof labor, thisoptionis alwaysavailon and ableto everyindividual Subsistence earnedin the facis (landis freeandabundant). toryaftereighthoursworkbut requires capitalinput.Ifcapitalis monopolized a by smallfraction the populace,thiselitecan acquire of subsistence do no workby and offeringto let some of the farmersemploythe elite'scapitalin the factoryfor a charge.Roemerassumesthatthereis onlyenoughcapitalto employhalftheworkforcein the factory thatlaborers indifferent where theyworkas long as and are to the leisureopportunities identical. are Giventhese assumptions, equilibrium the in thiseconomyis sixteenhoursworkto securesubsistence bothfarmers facfor and workersfor less toryemployees;an offerby the eliteto pay subsistenceto factory thansixteenhoursworkwould set off a stampedeby farmers seekingleisure.The undercuts bargaining the of laborso thatworkin the factory competition position resultsin no gain for workers.Since each is indifferent the type of work perto formedwhen compensation identical, is some remainon the farmand the others of go to the factorybut the standard livingis the same for both classes.The elite, extracts fromthe factory laborand is thereby able to subsistwithhowever, surplus out doinganyworkat all. to Marxian withdrawal the factory workersin thissceAccording Roemer's rule, narioarevictimsof capitalist becausetheywould gainsome leisure p-exploitation if the coalition exitedwith itspercapitashareof alienable assets (theelite'scapital). From complex-egalitarian the the however, exchangeis notexploitative standpoint, the workers certainly are The although factory exploitable. exchangeis notexploitative because these workershave nothingto lose by refusing offer.Theirlabor the time remains same whethertheystayon the farmor go to the factory. the Inexplicin for Thistransfer inexplicable is ably,theygivesomething return nothing. because it isn'tforcedor driven neediness. workers The are by clearly needyin the sense that theirneedinessmakesthem exploitable. the capitalists theyneed moreleisure; But have not exploitedthe needinessin orderto gain since they offerno benefitto employees.Whatthey have exploited,instead,is the indifference labor,which of irrationally withoutcompensation. (generously?) agreesto benefitthe capitalists Tomakethe gamemoreplausible, assumethatworking othersentailsa disufor tilitythatmust be compensatedin orderto attract workforce. a Assumealso that with a per capitashareof capitaleach need onlywork eighthoursa day.Tocoax

32. Egalitarian 41-47. Variations thefactory-farm appear nearly of Roemer's of Perspectives, in all game on The valuesvaryslightly writings exploitation. specific fromone workto the nextbuttheexampleI cite is representative the basicapproach. of

352 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

offersubsistencein exchangefortwelvehours peasantsoff the farm,the capitalists of work. Do the capitalists to exploitthe factoryworkers? According Roemer's with the payoffwould affordfactoryproletaribenchmark theydo, forwithdrawal reachesthe ans four extra hoursof leisure.The complex-egalitarian benchmark the our same conclusionbut in a different expectations, offeris way.Given cultural becauseprospective exploitative employeeswill lose fourprecioushoursof leisure too if they rejectit. The gain is nevertheless smallbecausetwelvehoursa daystill Needinesshas been exploited. seems liketoo muchworkforbaresubsistence. the But let us change the numbersonce againwhile maintaining proportions betweenthem. Now the farmproducessubsistencein fourhoursbut a percapita offer two shareof assetsonlyrequires hoursof workeach day.Ifthe capitalists subwho agree sistencein exchangeforthreehourswork,do theyexploitthe workers to mustsayyes, sincethe exitpayoffis superior the offer, Roemer to the exchange? In would findit hardto see how the offeris exploitative. but a complexegalitarian characterof the chapteron the distribution freetime in Spheresof Justice,Walzer we in as izes payoffslikeRoemer's "simple equality the sphereof leisure; wouldfix the lengthof the working by addingup the hoursof workanddividing numby day bers of people."But complex equalityproceedsdifferently: "thoughit rules out of the workingdays like those describedby Marx," principle equal membership thateveryonehaveexactlythe same amountof freetime"(189). "doesn't require fromthe perare In the game describedabove, the farmers not needy anymore; of our societytheirlot seems enviable.They lose littleif they rejectthe spective assetinequality remains, offer-one hourof freetimein a dayfullof leisure. Though stanto becauseit is not needyaccording ourcultural laboris no longerexploitable statusinequality. to engender is not sufficiently dards.Quantitative great inequality the overshoots mark.Metric Marxian We can now see why Roemer's approach set but of are its indicator p-exploitation, the values arbitrarily in the inequalities scenario(forexample,sixteenhoursof work for baresubsistence)tacitly original of standard needinessfor theirmoralforce.Whenwe appealedto the qualitative was the valuesso thatneither judgment party anylongerneedy,the metric changed It continuedto categorizeexchangesbetween asset lost its intuitive plausibility. all were guaranteed theydesired even thoughboth parties unequalsas exploitative was standard as well as abundantleisure.The Marxian (subsistence) materially in thiscase. was to the factthatmetricinequality morally unproblematic blind can theoryto miss cases of pItsemphasison metricequality also leadMarxian two proassetsareequal.Consider agentswithequally when alienable exploitation in Becauseof differences theirratesof metaboductiveland in a closed universe. to lism, the land only yields90%of subsistencefor the firstwhen cultivated the for maximumdegree,but 110% the second.Supposethe secondoffersto makeup both plots.Isthe offer will for the deficitin subsistence the firstif the latter cultivate it On Roemer'sbenchmark is not because each begins with a per exploitative? the assets.Butforcomplexequality offeris exploitative capitashareof the alienable

Robert Mayer 353

since the second agenttakesadvantage the first's of needinessto drivea hardbarthe gain.The firstwill lose much (perhapsher life) by refusing offerbut stillpays too much (in termsof hoursof hardwork) for the benefitreceived. The different ratesof metabolismin the contextof scarcity make the two statusunequalseven are thoughtheirasset holdings identical. Thescenariois hypothetical the flawit highlights real.Neediness but is oughtto be the standard unfairness exploitation of in theorybecausesomeonewithenough cannotbe exploited. if thatjudgment correct,simpleequality But is mustgiveway to a morecomplexapproach.

IV.A Third Way

is It Complexequality a third way in exploitation theory. is the social-democratic alternative and Marxists aboutwhen pmissingfromthe debatebetween liberals exists.As we haveseen, complexequality condemnsas exploitative exploitation a but with greater rangeof capitalist exchangesthandoes liberal theory, it disagrees Marxism asset inequality alwaysan unfair that is circumstance. When background or individulals groupsget less thantheyshouldfroma transaction, is not necesthis becausetheystart withless butrather becausetheydo not haveenough.They sarily are needy in some way, but one can have less without being needy and thus As Marxism overlooks moraldistinction. this exploitable. a speciesof simpleequality, but Complexequality clearlyisn'tMarxian, its thirdway also isn'tas modestas the program New Labour Britain.33 partyhas made its peace with capiof in That talistindustry, Walzer not. InSpheresof Justicehe arguesthatlarge-scale but has capitalist is enterprise exploitslaborin a pervasive way, but the exploitation more thaneconomic.Workers less voice in the firmthantheyshould;they political get are likeguestworkersin relation the host country(291-303). to Theirrightto selfhas of government been bought,buttransactions thissortarealwaysexploitative.34 to statusequality that be According Walzer, demrequires workplaces reorganized Thisthirdway therefore remainsdeeplycritical contemporary of ocratically. capias talism,but asset inequality such is not heldto be the fundamental injustice.35 Asa third does notstandhalfwaybetweenliberalism way,complexequality and Marxism a metricscale. Instead, repudiates on it metricequality favorof a posiin

33. Foran authoritative statementsee Anthony Giddens,The ThirdWay:The Renewalof Social Democracy (Cambridge: Press,1998). Polity 34. Contrasting criticism capitalism Roemer's, his of with Walzer that the actusuggests "what worker in is allyexperiences a capitalist than The factory morelikedomination robbery." lossof poweroverwork, not the surplusit creates,is the realinjustice capitalist in industrial relations. Walzer, See "What's of Left 44. Marx," 35. Fora critique Walzer's of for froma complex-egalitarian argument workplace standdemocracy "Michael pointsee Robert Industrial Mayer, Walzer, and Political 29 Democracy Complex Equality," Theory, 2001):237-61. (April

354 A WALZERIAN THEORY EXPLOITATION OF

tionalstandard. thisway complexequality In of Frankfurt's escapes Harry critique metricequality morally as irrelevant.36 Frankfurt matters arguesthatonlysufficiency neverequalsharesper se. We shouldensurethatall haveenough rather morally, than worry about whethersome have less. With neediness (insufficiency) its as standard fairness, of but adoptsthe same perspective, it holdsthat complexequality for too. sufficiency all is an egalitarian project Wheneveryonehas enough,allstand is at the same level;none is higheror lowerin termsof status.Thattypeof equality It for relevant. is the properbenchmark identifying exploitation. morally

Irrel98 and 21-43; "TheMoral 1987): as Ethics, (October Ideal," 36. Harry Frankfurt, "Equality a Moral 14 Affairs Public 2000):87-103. evanceof Equality," Quarterly, (April