This book argues, from a normative perspective, for the incorporation of an egalitarian sensitivity into tort law, and more generally, into private law. It shows how an egalitarian sensitivity can reformulate tort doctrine, with an emphasis on the tort of negligence. Rather than a comprehensive descriptive account of existing tort law, this book pro-actively searches for new approaches and conceptual tools to meet the challenges faced by egalitarians. The understanding of tort law offered in this book will bring about better practical results in specific cases. It supports the progressive troops in the ongoing philosophical and social battles that take place in the field of tort law and also adds another voice - rich, nuanced and sensitive - to the chorus that is tort theory.

Eight outstanding scholars contribute to this collection original essays on the philosophical foundations and political implications of egalitarian justice. The positions represented span the political spectrum, and the debate moves back and forth between the theoretical and the practical. Expressing often radically different political points of view, the contributors discuss such topics as individual rights, human good, mutual indebtedness, sexual relations, the family, individual desert, private property, self-ownership, and the welfare state.

Major scholars assess G. A. Cohen's contribution to the debate on the nature of egalitarian justice.

Theories of distributive justice are most severely tested in the area of disability. In this book, Mark Stein argues that utilitarianism performs better than egalitarian theories in this area: whereas egalitarian theories help the disabled either too little or too much, utilitarianism achieves the proper balance by placing resources where they will do the most good. Stein offers what may be the broadest critique of egalitarian theory from a utilitarian perspective. He addresses the work of egalitarian theorists John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen, Bruce Ackerman, Martha Nussbaum, Norman Daniels, Philippe Van Parijs, and others. Stein claims that egalitarians are often driven to borrow elements of utilitarianism in order to make their theories at all plausible. The book concludes with an acknowledgment that both utilitarians and egalitarians face problems in the distribution of life-saving medical resources. Stein advocates a version of utilitarianism that would distribute life-saving resources based on life expectancy, not quality of life. Egalitarian theories, he argues, ignore life expectancy and so are again found wanting. Distributive Justice and Disability is a powerful and engaging book that helps to reframe the debate between egalitarian and utilitarian thinkers.

The search for equality has been an enduring one in the United States. Yet there has been little significant change in the distribution of wealth over the generations, while the political ideology of socialism has been rejected outright by most people. In a sensitive rendering of data, Jennifer Hochschild discovers that it is the nonrich themselves who do not support the downward redistribution of wealth. Using a long questionnaire and in-depth interviews, she examines the ideals and contemporary practices of Americans on the subject of distributive justice. She finds that both rich and poor Americans perceive three realms in their lives: the private, the political, and the economic. People tend to support equality in two of the realms: the private, where fundamental socialization takes place in the family, school, and neighborhood, and the political, where issues arise about taxes, private property, rights, political representation, social welfare policies, and visions of utopia. But in the economic realm of the workplace, class structure, and opportunity, Americans favor maintaining material differences among people. Hochschild shows how divergence between ideals and practices, and especially between Americans' views of political and economic justice, produces ambivalence. Issues involving redistribution of wealth force people to think about whether they prefer political equalization or economic differentiation. Uncertain, Americans sometimes support equality, sometimes inequality, sometimes are torn between these two beliefs. As a result, they are often tense, helpless, or angry. It is not often that Americans are allowed to talk so candidly and within rigorous social science sampling about their lives. Hochschild gives us a new combination of oral history and political theory that political scientists, philosophers, sociologists, and policymakers can read with profit and pleasure.