What do you think?
Rate this book
The Illusions of Egalitarianism
In this systematic and scathing attack on the dominant contemporary version of liberalism, John Kekes challenges political assumptions shared by the majority of people in Western societies. Egalitarianism, as it's widely known, holds that a government ought to treat all citizens with equal consideration. Kekes charges that belief in egalitarianism rests on illusions that prevent people from facing unpleasant truths. Kekes, a major voice in modern political thought, argues that differences among human beings in the areas of morality, reasonability, legality, and citizenship are too important for governance to ignore. In a rigorous criticism of prominent egalitarian thinkers, including Dworkin, Nagel, Nussbaum, Rawls, Raz, and Singer, Kekes charges that their views present a serious threat to both morality and reason. For Kekes, certain "inegalitarian truths" are people should get what they deserve, those who are good and those who are evil should not be treated as if they had the same moral worth, people should not be denied what they have earned in order to benefit those who have not earned it, and individuals should be held responsible for their actions. His provocative book will compel many readers to question their faith in liberalism.
- GenresPhilosophy
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2003
4 people are currently reading
88 people want to read
About the author
John Kekes
27 books31 followersJohn Kekes is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University at Albany, SUNY, and Research Professor at Union College, Schenectady, New York. He is a noted conservative thinker, with interests mostly in ethics and political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 4, 2023
A Critique Of Egalitarianism
John Kekes, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Albany, has written widely on ethics, the good life, and political philosophy. After reading and reviewing Kekes' study of philosophical pluralism, "Pluralism in Philosophy: Changing the Subject" (2000), I read this more recent book of Kekes, "The Illusions of Egalitarianism" (2007). A political conservative, Kekes attacks some of the dominant political ideology of the day.
"The Illusions of Egalitarianism" is closely argued and densely written. The book is also passionate and polemical. Most of the book constitutes a critique of various forms of egalitarianism set out by leading contemporary political philosophers. Only in the latter chapters of the book does Kekes set forth the rudiments of his own political thought, as opposed to the criticism of others. Kekes also refers frequently to his books "Pluralism in Philosophy", mentioned above, and "The Case for Conservatism" for statements of his own position. Much of the argument is abstract and difficult to pin down especially for readers without background in contemporary political philosophy.
Kekes sees egalitarianism as the "currently dominant" but not the only version of liberalism, He defines egalitarianism in its most basic form as the view that "all human beings should be treated with equal consideration unless there are good reasons against it." The definition, of course, immediately raises the issue of the nature of "equal consideration" or, more simply of "equal" or "equality",
Kekes identifies a number of competing and partially inconsistent understandings of "equality" in some leading political philosophers. He argues: "the truth is that egalitarianism is based upon a cluster of overlapping illusions. They are comforting because if they were true, the world would be better, but they are nevertheless false. Believing them -- even with as much passion as many egalitarians do-- does not make them true or our lives better. They falsify reality and prevent us from facing dangerous and unpleasant facts."
In the opening chapters of his book, Kekes offers some global criticisms of egalitarianism. The most basic of these is that egalitarianism is based upon an overly optimistic view of human nature and ignores or downplays the existence of radical evil in the human heart and mind. This leads, for Kekes, to a tendency to view that human problems may be alleviated by changing institutions when the problem is in individual men and women as the makers of institutions. Kekes also offers a somewhat strained broad argument accusing egalitarianism of an unavoidable contradiction by holding to two major aims: a corrective aim of decreasing evil and a constructive aim of "providing more equal freedom, rights, and resources." Kekes argues that these two aims frequently work at cross purposes. Late in his book, Kekes characterizes egalitarian thinkers, as engaging in an idealized thinking and working down, so to speak, to real societies, while Kekes recommends instead a realistic approach to politics based on what is possible in a given society at a given time, given its values, resources, and history.
Most of the book consists of critiques of different forms of egalitarianism and egalitarian thinkers. These discussions are close and detailed and flesh out some of Kekes' more generalized statements. The thinkers with whom Kekes engages closely include John Rawls, the author of the influential "A Theory of Justice", the late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, Peter Singer, Joseph Raz, Thomas Nagel, the classical philosopher Gregory Vlastos, and Martha Nussbaum. It was bracing to read Kekes' critiques of these distinguished thinkers. Kekes differentiates the form of egalitarianism held by each. Rather than tie each thinker to the form of egalitarianism each advocates, as Kekes does, here is his description from his introduction of the various forms of egalitarianism addressed in his book.
"Here is a list of these illusions: more equality makes good lives more likely; responsibility holds only for intentional actions; justice requires the equalization of property; everyone ought to be treated with equal consideration; all human beings have equal moral worth; equal compassion for all is the basis of morality; it is immoral to have more than the basic necessities when others have less; equal freedom is the fundamental political value; political neutrality about the good should coexist with personal commitment to it; egalitarianism is the best defense of toleration; and the aim of political theory is to propound an ideal."
The analysis becomes fuller as the book proceeds. A key discussion occurs late in the book as Kekes explores what he terms the phenomena of "double mindedess" where individuals try, at great psychological cost, to distinguish between a personal commitment to what they deem to be right and a broader view in which individuals try to take a position of neutrality as far as the good in public policy is concerned. Kekes argues that this form of double mindedness characterizes egalitarianism and leads to unacceptable ambivalences and eqivocations. In the concluding chapter of the book, Kekes outlines a number of positive teachings and positions, centering on the existence of evil and on the need for politics to focus on the real rather than on idealizations, that characterize his own thought.
This book is sharp and provocative and argues for a position for which I have a good deal of sympathy. I am impressed by Kekes' pluralism, in this book and in the earlier book, and by his secularism, positions not often associated in the public mind with conservatism. With current political debate in the United States, this book deserves more attention than it has received by those wishing to reformulate and explain the teachings of an American conservatism. It is always a difficult path at best. For readers with a strong interest in political philosophy, this book presents a challenge to many currently dominant ideas.
Robin Friedman
John Kekes, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Albany, has written widely on ethics, the good life, and political philosophy. After reading and reviewing Kekes' study of philosophical pluralism, "Pluralism in Philosophy: Changing the Subject" (2000), I read this more recent book of Kekes, "The Illusions of Egalitarianism" (2007). A political conservative, Kekes attacks some of the dominant political ideology of the day.
"The Illusions of Egalitarianism" is closely argued and densely written. The book is also passionate and polemical. Most of the book constitutes a critique of various forms of egalitarianism set out by leading contemporary political philosophers. Only in the latter chapters of the book does Kekes set forth the rudiments of his own political thought, as opposed to the criticism of others. Kekes also refers frequently to his books "Pluralism in Philosophy", mentioned above, and "The Case for Conservatism" for statements of his own position. Much of the argument is abstract and difficult to pin down especially for readers without background in contemporary political philosophy.
Kekes sees egalitarianism as the "currently dominant" but not the only version of liberalism, He defines egalitarianism in its most basic form as the view that "all human beings should be treated with equal consideration unless there are good reasons against it." The definition, of course, immediately raises the issue of the nature of "equal consideration" or, more simply of "equal" or "equality",
Kekes identifies a number of competing and partially inconsistent understandings of "equality" in some leading political philosophers. He argues: "the truth is that egalitarianism is based upon a cluster of overlapping illusions. They are comforting because if they were true, the world would be better, but they are nevertheless false. Believing them -- even with as much passion as many egalitarians do-- does not make them true or our lives better. They falsify reality and prevent us from facing dangerous and unpleasant facts."
In the opening chapters of his book, Kekes offers some global criticisms of egalitarianism. The most basic of these is that egalitarianism is based upon an overly optimistic view of human nature and ignores or downplays the existence of radical evil in the human heart and mind. This leads, for Kekes, to a tendency to view that human problems may be alleviated by changing institutions when the problem is in individual men and women as the makers of institutions. Kekes also offers a somewhat strained broad argument accusing egalitarianism of an unavoidable contradiction by holding to two major aims: a corrective aim of decreasing evil and a constructive aim of "providing more equal freedom, rights, and resources." Kekes argues that these two aims frequently work at cross purposes. Late in his book, Kekes characterizes egalitarian thinkers, as engaging in an idealized thinking and working down, so to speak, to real societies, while Kekes recommends instead a realistic approach to politics based on what is possible in a given society at a given time, given its values, resources, and history.
Most of the book consists of critiques of different forms of egalitarianism and egalitarian thinkers. These discussions are close and detailed and flesh out some of Kekes' more generalized statements. The thinkers with whom Kekes engages closely include John Rawls, the author of the influential "A Theory of Justice", the late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, Peter Singer, Joseph Raz, Thomas Nagel, the classical philosopher Gregory Vlastos, and Martha Nussbaum. It was bracing to read Kekes' critiques of these distinguished thinkers. Kekes differentiates the form of egalitarianism held by each. Rather than tie each thinker to the form of egalitarianism each advocates, as Kekes does, here is his description from his introduction of the various forms of egalitarianism addressed in his book.
"Here is a list of these illusions: more equality makes good lives more likely; responsibility holds only for intentional actions; justice requires the equalization of property; everyone ought to be treated with equal consideration; all human beings have equal moral worth; equal compassion for all is the basis of morality; it is immoral to have more than the basic necessities when others have less; equal freedom is the fundamental political value; political neutrality about the good should coexist with personal commitment to it; egalitarianism is the best defense of toleration; and the aim of political theory is to propound an ideal."
The analysis becomes fuller as the book proceeds. A key discussion occurs late in the book as Kekes explores what he terms the phenomena of "double mindedess" where individuals try, at great psychological cost, to distinguish between a personal commitment to what they deem to be right and a broader view in which individuals try to take a position of neutrality as far as the good in public policy is concerned. Kekes argues that this form of double mindedness characterizes egalitarianism and leads to unacceptable ambivalences and eqivocations. In the concluding chapter of the book, Kekes outlines a number of positive teachings and positions, centering on the existence of evil and on the need for politics to focus on the real rather than on idealizations, that characterize his own thought.
This book is sharp and provocative and argues for a position for which I have a good deal of sympathy. I am impressed by Kekes' pluralism, in this book and in the earlier book, and by his secularism, positions not often associated in the public mind with conservatism. With current political debate in the United States, this book deserves more attention than it has received by those wishing to reformulate and explain the teachings of an American conservatism. It is always a difficult path at best. For readers with a strong interest in political philosophy, this book presents a challenge to many currently dominant ideas.
Robin Friedman
May 16, 2021
A devastating attack on many different forms of egalitarianism by a leading conservative intellectual. What Kekes does to the late John Rawls isn't pretty. The chapter on Marta Nussbaum is even better, or worse, depending on how you feel about this sort of thing. Kekes' arguments are facile at times, but mostly plausible.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews