Which one of the following thinkers refutes 'Equality of welfare'?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:

The correct thinker who fundamentally refutes 'Equality of welfare' is **Michael Walzer**. Walzer’s major contribution to political theory is his work, *Spheres of Justice* (1983), in which he rejects all attempts at establishing a single, universal principle of distributive justice, including "Equality of welfare." Walzer argues against simple or complex equality based on a singular metric (like utility, resources, or welfare). Instead, he advocates for a theory of **Complex Equality**. In this theory, different social goods (such as money, office, education, security, and welfare) should be distributed according to different criteria, relevant to the social meaning of that specific good. Walzer believes that a society is just not when everyone has the same amount of 'welfare' or happiness, but when the dominance of one sphere (like wealth) does not corrupt the distribution rules of another sphere (like medical care or political power). For Walzer, justice is about preventing **domination**, not achieving equality in one metric like welfare. Trying to equalize welfare across all individuals is both philosophically flawed and practically impossible because welfare is subjective, culturally bound, and varies widely depending on individual needs and interpretations. His entire framework—distributive justice being relative to social meaning—stands in direct refutation of any unitary egalitarian principle like 'Equality of welfare' or 'Equality of resources.'

The incorrect option is 1:

**John Rawls** is one of the most important critics of 'Equality of welfare,' but he does not refute the idea in the same radical, pluralist way Walzer does. Rawls critiques utilitarianism, which often seeks to maximize or equalize welfare (utility). Instead of 'Equality of welfare,' Rawls proposes 'Equality of resources' or, more specifically, the distribution of **Primary Goods** (basic rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth). While Rawls rejects the *idea* of equalizing subjective welfare because of administrative difficulties and the problem of expensive tastes (some people require more resources to achieve the same level of welfare as others), his primary goal is to establish a foundational set of principles for distributing basic goods, not to refute the core idea of equality across all metrics, but to shift the metric away from subjective welfare to objective goods. Therefore, while he refutes the *utilitarian* approach to welfare, he is not the central figure associated with refuting the possibility of a unitary egalitarian principle itself, which is Walzer's goal.

The incorrect option is 2:

**Ronald Dworkin** is a prominent liberal egalitarian who is actually famous for championing an alternative to 'Equality of welfare,' known as **Equality of Resources**. Dworkin’s main argument is a detailed and systematic critique of 'Equality of welfare,' which he finds inadequate because it fails to account for individual responsibility and expensive tastes. He proposed his envy-test (the auction) and insurance scheme to develop a version of egalitarianism that is sensitive to choices but insensitive to initial endowments or brute luck. Because Dworkin is a strong advocate *for* equality, just defined in terms of resources rather than welfare, he is traditionally cited as a reformer and replacement for welfare-based equality, rather than a thinker who fundamentally refutes the possibility of an equality metric in general. He seeks to provide a better, more robust metric of equality than welfare, making him an opponent of the metric, but still within the egalitarian tradition.

The incorrect option is 3:

**Eric Rakowski** is a contemporary legal and political theorist, often engaging with issues of distributive justice, especially in health care and taxation. His work typically involves detailed analysis and extension of the theories put forth by Rawls and Dworkin. While Rakowski has definitely addressed and criticized the feasibility of achieving 'Equality of welfare' in his writings, particularly concerning life-saving resources, he is not considered one of the primary figures whose entire theoretical structure is built upon the *refutation* of the concept of a single distributive metric. His contributions are highly specialized and often aimed at refining resource egalitarianism (Dworkin's view) rather than founding a comprehensive, pluralistic theory like Walzer’s which rejects the uniformity of distribution entirely.