)11stm Tosi contribute to rhe maximization of utility. Luck cgahtanans should oppose a basic income because such a policy would treat chose who simply choose not ro work similarly to those who, through no choice of their own, .ire unable to work. le would, therefore, fail to distinguish between cases of brute luck and option luck, as the former would enjoy greater life satisfaction than the latter. Finally, and most interesting for my purpose,, Barry .irgues chat chmc who arc egalitarians for re.hons of soli1.brity or fcllow,hip should reject a basic income because it would crc.itc a two• dass �l)ciety of the employed and the unemployed: (Iii \\*e take economic equality to be an equ.il m.ueri.tl st.ind.ird of h1111g ... a system of basic income would create a society that was m.irkedly unequal because of rhc g,tp that would have to be created hi:m*ecn those on the b.isic income and those in cmployment.1 1 ,upposc m.iny cgaht.trians would .igrcc with Barry's assessment. But pi:rh.1p, an cgahrarian who rcmcmhcrs being drawn to her bchefs about d i-cnbum*c jusncc ollt of a concern for the le.1st advantaged will recog- lllll' in his remarks rhc thinking of what Ad.1m Smith terms the "man of systL•m:* Such a man �seems co im;1ginc th,u he can arrange the different mcmh.:r, of a great society wirh as much case as rhe hand arranges rhe diii.:n*llt pieces upon a chessboard," aod "is often so enamored with the ,uppo,cd be.1uty of his own idc.il plan of go\'crnmcnt, that he .:annot suf* icr thl' snullest dcvi.ttion from any p.irt of it."1 If commitment to a theory ol eg.1li1.iri,m 1usucc would lead one to reject a universal h.isic income .,s 11n1thl. then perhaps th.it 1� a smke against such a theory. For those who h1:c.11rn: egalitari.ins because rhcy wanted ro help the le.1st advantaged, then this might he a good rime to sc.irch for another theory. Alternatively, 1ho,.: who think ha�ic income policies arc an anracrive idea might be on thl* ], ,okout lor a broader theory of justice th,n would cmlorsc chem. l"his ch,1ptcr den:lops ., tentative sketch of such a thcor). B.isic.illy, I will 1;1kc it as a set pmnr chat a universal basic income is a 1usr policy .111d ,c,m:h for an explanation of why that might be. If a ba�ic income ,rrikcs us as a fair and just ide.1 comparihle with our vision of a good ,11.:icry, why is that so? The answer I defend below is th,H mmt re.:ent th.:ormng about d1stnbutivc justi.:e and cgal1tarianbm is wrong. A just -,J(iL ty 1s nor one in which people must enjoy cqu,11 holdmgs, equal wel- t.ire. equ.11 cap.ibihties, or even equal soci.il status. Ir is, r.ithcr, one in \\ h,�h everyone cnioys sufficient soci.il status. I call this view relation.ii sul I 1.:iem.1 rianism. Dimibutivc Egalitarianism and Its Discontents :\\uch of the debate among egalitarians m the pose-Theory of Justice era lu, been about the currency of distributive justice-or the "equality of Rel. �11ff1cw11t<1r1m11s111 ,md B,1s1c lllcoml! 51 wh,1t" dcbatc .4 The idea unifying p.irticip.rnts in this debate h.is been that there is some thing X chat must he equalized across persons, and our t,tsk as moral and political philosophers is to figure out whether ir is resources, welfare, c,1p.1bilitics, or something else. And once we h.ne seeded rhat crucial question, the correct public poli..:y is the one chat best approximates an equal distribution of th,1t thing. I would like ro discuss two popular views that arose, ,H le.1st in their contemporary form, a,; reactions to this debate. The first \'iew is called relational egalitarianism and has been defended most prommcncly by Elizabeth Anderson .ind Samuel Scheffler.' Rcl.111onal cg.1hr,1ri.rns ,1rgue th.u eg.ihtarianism 1� fundamentally ahout the ehmin.nion of soci,tl hier- an:hy, and the equality worth canng about 1s relanonal equ,thty. An<ler• son in p.irticul.ir eludes d1scribucivc cgalitari.ms ior m1ssinl! this pmnc b� fix.iring on the distribution of goods at rhc cxcltblon of all else. H1stori- c.1lly, she pomts out, eg.ilitari.m mo\*cments h.1v.: been concerned with bringing about equality of so.:1.tl condmons, in which people mrcr,1cr with one another in J dcmocr.itic society ol persons wirh equ.11 ,tarns. It is not de.tr wh.ir the d1srribut1\*c implications of chi,; new .trc, and 10 my knowledge, no one has attempted m work them our." Hur crmc.1lly, equal social rcl.ttions arc not reached simply hy d1strihurmg rhmg,---.rnd certainly nor by dim1burion of a single good. Is rcl.1tion.1I cgalitari.mism any more friendly to b,l';ic income policies rh.rn arc the forms of distributive cg.thtarianism considered c.ul1cr? The differences bet\\ cen cmployc<l .ind unemployed members of socict� in terms ot marcn.il holdmgs, wcltarc, and so on arc nor a, l,kcl� m oftcnJ rclauon.11 cgal1t.uians. It is not necessarily a problem for socul rcl.uiom among free ,md equal citizens 1f a h.tsic income m.tkcs lmlc h.:.1dw,1y in lessening the gap hetwecn most and lca,;r advantaged along whatever metric f.ivorcd by distrihuri\*c cg.1litari.1ns. Bm I think relational egalitarians' focus on cqu,11 srarus cre,Hcs new prohlems. First is what we .:an call the jobs prohlcm. Consider the differences in starus th.u might emerge as ., resulr of some h.1\*ing careers-some of which might even be cnjoy.ihlc-.111<l others being underemployed or even entirely dependent on rhc basic income. For hct- t.:r or wursc, m.my peoples' self-esteem is hound up w1rh their work. It is import.ult to them that they be .1hle to ,cc themscl\'c, a,; productil'e members of society who support themselves and their families, .md \\ ho make a positi\'e contribution to their community through rcmuncr,Hil'e work .. Thus, if the hasic income is supposed to addrcs, rhe i,rne of ris- ing unemployment due to autom.uion, it docs not satisfy the pnm.ur concern of relational egalitarians. Simply giving people 1110111:y docs not m,,kc them feel like the soci.,I cqu,11 of their fellow citi,.en� \\ hen wh.tt they really need is a 106.� For lack of a better term, \\C c.rn call ,\ second problem the problem of rubbmg 1t in . .-\ b.tsic mcomc would open up lucr.mvc new fronncrs •

fill )11st111 Tosi \lor.1llr Equ.11?" l'eter Smgc:r ,md His Critic,, ed. D.ilc J.11mcson (Oxford: 111.1.:kwdl, 1999l, 103-128. 1-1 hir ,motlH:r ex,11nplc, Ron.1ld Dworkrn ,vr11cs: "It 1s, I think, appJrcnt th.ir rhc* Lin1tcd �1.11c, i.1lls i.ir short now !of the 1Jc.1I of cquaht>*I, .\ sulm.11111,11 1111111ir1t)* of ,\mcri..:ans cue chrnnicallr unemployed or earn wages below anr rc.1h,tic 'pmc:ny line' or an: h.rnJicappeJ in 1*,1rious ways or burdened with ,1u:ci.1I need,; a11J mmt of these people would Jo the work neccss.1rr ro c.1rn .1 Jccem li,*in!,! ii the,* h.iJ the opportunit>* .mJ c.1p.1citr." Ron,1IJ :\I. D"mkin, r\ ,\l,lltt.'r 1Jf l'ri11ci/1le (C.1mhriJgc, :\I.\: l-l.trv,1rJ Um\'t:r,aty Pres,, I 'I� 'i\ 208. I,. h we will we. though. suff11:1c111,m,1msm .1s Jc\crthcd "1 i.tr might lure trouble ,pc.:1ir111!-! .1 ,oc1cty-,pcc1 iic b.1si.: mrnmc level. 16. llc,.111so: I will nm he gi1*ing .1 iull account oi wh.1t kinJ of rcl,uions arc ,uf- iicicnth* J,:,.:,:m, ,111J thi, vicw is new ,rnJ the 1:cncr.11 iJca unf.unili.ir. it would l•c ur1.lcr,t. 111J,1blc ii one felt 11ne,1 sr abour,it. For inst.mcc, rc.idcrs might \\'mry th.n ,omc n,l'ity conceptions of suiiicicm rcl.ttions arc in this i.imily of de"*,. But th.It i, true oi rcl.nion.il eg,1lit.1ri.rni,m. too, bo:forc one n,1rrnws ,lown the ,ct to wh.n i, rc.1,011.1hlc. Soro prm*iJc ,omc rc:.1,sur.1110.:c, I 1.1kc it th.u ,ml' ,.1ti,i.1ctor\' .Kcoum oi dc.:cnr rcl.ttions would rule out historical hie ,u.:1�11c,, ,l.n c ,;><:1ct1c,, ,rnJ Sll<:1ct1c, in "111.:h women .,re secn11d*d,1s, d[l/l!fl�. ,t .1r111, 1 Fnuri,:, "\'\ h,11 I-, So.:1,11 Equ,1l11y? .\n .\n,1lrs1s of 51.1111s Equ.il,ty .i, .1 '-rronglr Eg.1hr.m.111 ldc.11," R,•s l'11(1l1c,1 IS, no. 2 (2012): l<F-108 . I�- ,,;lwtilo:r. Eq11,i/11y ,111.I Tr.1d11um, 1.25. I 'I. ,d1ciilcr, Eq11,i/11y ,md Tr.1d1t1m1, 226. .!\l. �d1ciilcr, Eq11,il1I)' .111.I Tr.1.l1tirm, 226. .! I. I r.rnkiurr, "Eq11.1li1y .l'i .1 ,\ lor.11 IJc.11," 37-38 . .!.!. l<og,-r Cri,p, "l'q11.tli1y. Priority. ,md Cmnp.1,sion," Ethics 113, no. 4 (2003): 762. .! 1. Ch.II, "\\'hy �uiii,icnq* Is �llt Enough," J(}l. 2-1. I •,111-f,1�q11cs Rou,w.rn. Tin R1s1c l'ol1t1c,1I \t'ntmgs. 1st cJ. (lnd1.111,1polis: I l.1,kc11 l'uhl1Sh111!,!, I 9S-), 1-0. Rous,c.rn\ ,1.11cmcnt m.1y h,1\'c 1mplic.1t1on,; t.ir .1 ,ctl1ng on pcrmi,sihle holding,, ,is might Ill)' own \*it:w. Bur I will lc.ll'c th.u i"uc ,1,idc iur purpmc, of this d1.1ptcr. Bihliography . \n,ll'r,on, E.S. 1999. "\\'h.u h the Point of Equ.1li1y?" Etl!ics 109(21: 287-337. . \mc,011, R.J. 199':I. "\\"h.1t. If An>*thing, Renders .\II 1-lumam :\lor,1llr Equ.11?" In /',•t,:r Smg,•r ,md I tis Criti.-s, edin:d by D. J.1111icson, I 03-128. Oxford: Bl.1ckwclL 11.irr)*, II. I 992 ... Equ.tlity Ye,, ll.nic Income No." In :\rg11i11g for 8,i;ic Income, f//:u*.1/ 1'011nd,11i,ms f;lr ,, R,1d1<*.il R,'{orm, edited hr I'. \',111 P.irij,, 128-140 . I 01hlon: Vcr,o. Li,.11, I'. 2007. "\'i'hr Suiiio.:icnq Is �ot Enough." f.t/,i,:s 117(2): 296-326. Cholhi_ .\I. 201 S. -*The Dc,irc for \X'ork ;1s ,111 Ad.ipri\*c Prcicrence." t111101mmy -l: 1-17. Coh,*n. G . .\. 19S9. "On rhe Currencr of Eg.ilit.iri,m Justice." f.t/,i,:s 99(-1 ): 906-9-1-1 . Cri,p, R. 2003. "Equ.tlity, Priority, ,111J Comp,ission." Etl,ics I 13(4): 745-763. lhrnrkin. IL\I. l':IS5 . .-\ ,\l,1t14•r of l'ri11,:iple. C.1mhriJgc, ,\IA: H.m*ard Unil'cr* , 1 �Pre,�. Fu .. ric. C. 2011. *•\X'h.11 Is Sm:i.11 Equality? .\n .-\n.1ly�is of Surus Equ.1lirr .1s a Srrongl>* Egalit,m,111 Ideal." Res 1'11M1c.1 I 8(2): (07-126. l-r.11 kfun, 1-1. 198-. "Equ.ihrr .ts a :\(oral Ideal." f.tlucs 98( I): 21-43. Rel. S11((1oe11tar1,1111s111 ,111<1 Rt1s1,: l11,*,n11,• 61 No211:k, R. 19--1. r\11,ircl1y, St.lie, ,111,I Utop,.1. :-,.;cw York: II.No.: Book,. Roussc.111,J.•J. 1987. T/,e D,wc l'o/111,,1( \�'rrtmgs. l,r cJmon. lmh.111.1poh-: 11.,d,* e1r Publ,slung. Schcfilcr, S. 20 I 0. t.qmrlity ,md Tr,1d1tm11: <.J11,•;f1w1; of \'.1/11,: 111 ,\/,ir.rl .m,1 l'lll/11c.1/ Tl,co'), :-.:cw York: Oxford Uniwr\it� Pre"* Sdmnrml, C. .!011. "\X'hr Rd.11io11.1I Eg.11it.1ri.111, Should C.trc .-\hour Di,1rihu- tion,." So.-i,11 Theo')' an.I l'r,1,:tice J7d): .,65-390. Sen, ,\. I 9S0. "Equality oi Wh,11;" In The *1:11111,•r 1-,•cfure; 011 l/11m.111 \:,/11,*s. c<lircd by�. :\k.\lurrin, 196-220. ( .1111bridf!c: C.11nbridgc Uni\*er,ity l'n:". Slucld,, I.. 201 S. ]11s1 E11011g/1: S11ff1cie11c) ,1; .1 Dem.,,,./,,_( J11st1ce. r <llllhnr �h EJ111lmrgh Unm,rsay l'rc,,;. �nurh, ..\. 1985. Tl1t: Tl,eory of ,\lur,1/ S,:11tm1e11t;. lnJ1,m.1pohs: I 1hcrt) h111d In,. To,i, J. .rnJ \X',mnkc, II. 2016. ":\lor.11 Gr.111d,1.111Jini,:." ('/1i/";"{'ln* .m,/ /'11/J/r, ,\(/,ms -1-1(31: 19--2,-. T I The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income Edited by Michael Cholbi and Michael Weber I� ��a�!!!n���up NEW YORK AND LONDON