Read on Twitter
Excellent thread. @LayWilliams explains how it's consistent to hold (1) that we shouldn't focus on our position relative to others; but that (2) this is consistent with a demand for more equal conditions. An important point, especially for "relational" egalitarians. 1/5 https://twitter.com/LayWilliams/status/1359167141325471747
Relational/democratic/social egalitarians emphasize that equality is about a quality of relations between persons, not fundamentally about any pattern of distribution of stuff (like wealth or power). But this raises a problem that I think is often overlooked. 2/5
Why not abandon any concern with distribution altogether, and just say that equality requires us to maintain "equal" relations (no condescension, arrogance, servility, etc.) however extremely unequal distributions may be? (I call this "stoic egalitarianism.") 3/5
I think there are several available responses here. A big one is that it's unreasonable to expect people to maintain equal relations in the face of extremely unequal distributions. And it's unreasonable to expose them to the risk of unequal treatment by others. 4/5
But the main point is that this is a real puzzle for relational egalitarians, and resolving the puzzle requires figuring out what the fundamental concerns of social/political equality are, and how they connect to distributive principles--which is not easy! 5/5