What abolishing the family would not do

Anca Gheaus*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Because families disrupt fair patterns of distribution and, in particular, equality of opportunity, egalitarians believe that the institution of the family needs to be defended at the bar of justice. In their recent book, Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift have argued that the moral gains of preserving the family outweigh its moral costs. Yet, I claim that the egalitarian case for abolishing the family has been over-stated due to a failure to consider how alternatives to the family would also disturb fair distributions and, in particular, equality of opportunity. Absent the family, children would continue to be exposed to care-givers of different levels of ability, investment in childrearing and beneficial partiality. In addition, social mechanisms other than the family would lead to the accumulation of economic inequalities. Any kind of upbringing will fail to realise equality for reasons that go deeper than the family: our partiality and unequal abilities to nurture.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)284-300
Number of pages17
JournalCritical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 4 May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Family
  • care
  • equality of opportunity
  • partiality
  • upbringing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'What abolishing the family would not do'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this