From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Prioritarianism or the priority view[1] is a view within ethics and political philosophy that holds that the goodness of an outcome is a function of overall well-being across all individuals with extra weight given to worse-off individuals. Prioritarianism resembles utilitarianism. Like utilitarianism, prioritarianism is a form of aggregative consequentialism; however, it differs in that it does not weight the well-being of all individuals equally, but instead prioritizes those individuals that are worse-off.

The term "prioritarianism" was coined by the moral philosopher Larry Temkin in an effort to explicate the theory's non-egalitarian form. Richard Arneson, a proponent of the view,[2] offers the following formulation:

Prioritarianism holds that the moral value of achieving a benefit for an individual (or avoiding a loss) is greater, the greater the size of the benefit as measured by a well-being scale, and greater, the lower the person's level of well-being over the course of her life apart from receipt of this benefit.[3]

Like utilitarians, prioritarians believe in maximizing moral value or goodness, provided that the latter consists in more than just overall well-being. Prioritarianism says that benefits to the worse off matter more than benefits to the better off.

Distinction from utilitarianism[edit]

To further sharpen the difference between utilitarianism and prioritarianism, imagine a two-person society: its only members are Jim and Pam. Jim has an extremely high level of well-being, is rich, and lives a blissed-out existence. Pam, by contrast, has an extremely low level of well-being, is in extreme poverty, living a hellish existence. Now imagine that we have some free resources (say, $10,000) that we may distribute to the members of this society as we see fit. Under normal circumstances, due to the diminishing marginal utility of money, the $10,000 will generate more well-being for Pam than it will for Jim.

Thus, under normal circumstances, a utilitarian would recommend giving the resources to Pam. However, imagine that Jim, for whatever reason, although already very well-off, would gain just as much well-being by receiving the $10,000 as would Pam. Now, since it makes no difference in terms of overall well-being who gets the $10,000, utilitarians would say it makes no difference at all who gets the $10,000. Prioritarians, by contrast, would say that it is better to benefit Pam, the worse off individual.


Prioritarianism does not merely serve as a "tie-breaker" (as in the case above), but it can go against overall utility. Suppose there are two outcomes. In outcome 1, Jim's well-being level is 110 (blissful); Pam's is -73 (hellish); overall well-being is 37. In outcome 2, Jim's well-being level is 23; Pam's well-being level is 13; overall well-being is 36. Prioritarians would say that if their prioritarian views were sufficiently strong, outcome 2 is better or more desirable than outcome 1 despite being lower than outcome 1 in terms of overall well-being.[citation needed] Bringing Pam up by 86 has more moral value than bringing Jim down by 87 if a sufficiently higher weight is given to improvements in condition for the worst off (Pam), but if the added weight is small (very weak priority), that might not be the case. If one could move from a society described by outcome 1 to one described by outcome 2, under sufficiently strong prioritarianism, that ought to be done. Prioritarianism is arguably more consistent with commonsense moral thinking than utilitarianism when it comes to these kinds of cases, especially because of the prioritarian's emphasis on compassion.[4]

It is also arguably more consistent with common sense than radical forms of egalitarianism that value only equality. Such a view might say that if the only way to achieve equality is by bringing Jim down from 110 to -73, it ought to be done. Prioritarianism does not accord any intrinsic value to equality of well-being across individuals and would not regard a move toward a more equal distribution of well-being as better if the worse off did not benefit.[1]

In addition to having potential advantages over utilitarianism and pure egalitarianism (as noted above), prioritarianism also avoids some putatively embarrassing implications of a related view, the maximin principle (also note Rawls's difference principle).[5] The maximin principle ranks outcomes solely according to the well-being of the worst-off member of a society. It can thus be viewed as an extreme version of prioritarianism. Imagine choosing between two outcomes: in outcome 1, Jim's well-being level is 1; Pam's well-being level is 100; Dwight's well-being level is 100 (one could add an indefinite number of people with indefinitely high well-being levels). In outcome 2, Jim's well-being level is 2; Pam's well-being level is 3; Dwight's well-being level is 3. Many of us would part ways with the maximin principle and judge that outcome 1 is better than outcome 2 despite the fact that the worst-off member (Jim) has a lower level of well-being in outcome 1.[6]


Objections to prioritarianism include many of the standard objections that adhere to aggregative consequentialism, for instance, the repugnant conclusion[7] and related objections based on the apparent implausibility of certain trade-offs (if there is some very large number of mild headaches such that it would be worse to bring about these mild headaches than the protracted and intense torture of an innocent person).[8] There are also objections to quantifying, measuring, or making interpersonal comparisons of well-being, that strike against most if not all forms of aggregative consequentialism, including prioritarianism.[citation needed]

Another objection to prioritarianism concerns how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off. There may be issues of arbitrariness or "sloppy intuitionism" lurking there. Prioritarians are faced with the potentially awkward task of balancing overall well-being against priority. Any theory that leaves any room for judgment in particular cases is also susceptible to that kind of objection about sloppiness or arbitrariness. A prioritarian might claim that how much weight should be given to the well-being of the worse off is something to be worked out in reflective equilibrium, or that if weights cannot be determined exactly, there is a range of weights that is acceptable or justifiable.[citation needed]

A utilitarian might also claim that their theory is more parsimonious than prioritarianism (which values well-being and priority). However, a prioritarian might, in response, argue that even a putatively genuinely monistic utilitarianism like hedonistic utilitarianism is not fully mechanized (and perhaps not even genuinely monistic) as it still requires judgment, as when it comes to balancing various pleasures against various pains.[9]


  1. ^ a b Parfit, Derek (December 1997). "Equality and priority". Ratio. 10 (3): 202–221. doi:10.1111/1467-9329.00041.
  2. ^ Arneson, Richard (January 2000). "Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism". Ethics. 110 (2): 339–349. doi:10.1086/233272.
  3. ^ Arneson, Richard, "Egalitarianism", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2008 edition).
  4. ^ Crisp, Roger (July 2003). "Equality, Priority, and Compassion". Ethics. 113 (4): 145–63. doi:10.1086/373954.
  5. ^ A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
  6. ^ Harsanyi, J. C. (June 1975). "Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory". American Political Science Review. 69 (2): 594–606. JSTOR 1959090.
  7. ^ Ryberg, Jesper, Tännsjö, Torbjörn, Arrhenius, Gustaf, "The Repugnant Conclusion", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2008 edition).
  8. ^ Norcross, Alastair (1998). "Great Harms from Small Benefits Grow: How Death can be Outweighed by Headaches". Analysis. 58 (2): 152–158. doi:10.1093/analys/58.2.152. JSTOR 3328486.
  9. ^ On the last point, see W.D. Ross, Foundations of Ethics, p. 89