What do you think?
Rate this book
Basic Equality
An innovative argument that vindicates our normative commitment to basic equality, synthesising philosophy, history, and psychology
What makes human beings one another’s equals? That we are "basic equals" has become a bedrock assumption in Western moral and political philosophy. And yet establishing why we ought to believe this claim has proved fiendishly difficult, floundering in the face of the many inequalities that characterise the human condition. In this provocative work, Paul Sagar offers a novel approach to explaining and justifying basic equality. Rather than attempting to find an independent foundation for basic equality, he argues, we should instead come to see our commitment to this idea as the result of the practice of treating others as equals. Moreover, he continues, it is not enough to grapple with the problem through philosophy alone—by just thinking very hard, in our armchairs; we must draw insights from history and psychology as well.
Sagar writes that, as things stand, there appear to be no good arguments for believing in the truth of basic equality. Indeed, for much of Western intellectual history and social practice, basic inequality has been the default position. How is it then, Sagar asks, that in Western societies, in a period of less than a century, basic equality emerged as the dominant view? Sagar approaches this not as a mere philosophical puzzle, but as a dramatic historical development. In so doing, he shows us what is at stake when human beings treat one other as equals just because they are human beings.
What makes human beings one another’s equals? That we are "basic equals" has become a bedrock assumption in Western moral and political philosophy. And yet establishing why we ought to believe this claim has proved fiendishly difficult, floundering in the face of the many inequalities that characterise the human condition. In this provocative work, Paul Sagar offers a novel approach to explaining and justifying basic equality. Rather than attempting to find an independent foundation for basic equality, he argues, we should instead come to see our commitment to this idea as the result of the practice of treating others as equals. Moreover, he continues, it is not enough to grapple with the problem through philosophy alone—by just thinking very hard, in our armchairs; we must draw insights from history and psychology as well.
Sagar writes that, as things stand, there appear to be no good arguments for believing in the truth of basic equality. Indeed, for much of Western intellectual history and social practice, basic inequality has been the default position. How is it then, Sagar asks, that in Western societies, in a period of less than a century, basic equality emerged as the dominant view? Sagar approaches this not as a mere philosophical puzzle, but as a dramatic historical development. In so doing, he shows us what is at stake when human beings treat one other as equals just because they are human beings.
- GenresPhilosophy
240 pages, Hardcover
Published April 16, 2024
1 person is currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 27, 2024
Probably first philosophy book I have finished, even though it’s not the easiest read.
It gives a lot of food for thought. Basic equality concept as described by the author appeals to me, however I was confused when animals got into picture…
It gives a lot of food for thought. Basic equality concept as described by the author appeals to me, however I was confused when animals got into picture…
May 14, 2025
The problem is extremely interesting and I aplaud the bold attempt and manner of approach. I just don’t find the argument persuasive, and the book, in general, isn’t very thorough.
There is no way around the fact that the central argument is circular in a vicious way. If you want to say that cruelty and injustice don’t ground basic equality but reinforce each other, you have to say that justification is happening through coherence. But then you need to defend value-coherence as the prime concern of politics/ethics; which Sagar doesn’t, and shouldn’t.
If, on the other hand, you want to stress the functional role of basic equality, you have to justify the end it functions towards – which interpretation of cruelty and injustice should basic justice avoid?
The wittgensteinian relativism sort of works in defending speciesism, but for everything else, it just seems plucked out of the air. Better than realism, but insufficient.
There is no way around the fact that the central argument is circular in a vicious way. If you want to say that cruelty and injustice don’t ground basic equality but reinforce each other, you have to say that justification is happening through coherence. But then you need to defend value-coherence as the prime concern of politics/ethics; which Sagar doesn’t, and shouldn’t.
If, on the other hand, you want to stress the functional role of basic equality, you have to justify the end it functions towards – which interpretation of cruelty and injustice should basic justice avoid?
The wittgensteinian relativism sort of works in defending speciesism, but for everything else, it just seems plucked out of the air. Better than realism, but insufficient.
October 12, 2025
an interesting defence of a historically odd idea.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews