Critical‐level Sufficientarianism*

Sufficientarianism is a general class of distributional principles that assign absolute priority to those below a threshold level that represents a minimally acceptable standard of well-being. This topic has received an increasing amount of attention in the recent literature.11 See, for instance, Crisp 2003; Huseby 2010; Shields 2012, 2016. The notion of sufficientarianism can be traced back to Frankfurt who writes that “what is important from the point of view of morality is not that everyone should have the same but that each should have enough.”22 Frankfurt 1987, pp. 21–2. This theory relies on the existence of some threshold value of sufficiency: if an individual's well-being is above the threshold, then he or she is deemed to have enough. In this article, we employ an axiological approach to identify a class of sufficientarian principles. Our starting point is the notion of absolute priority, a requirement that we consider to be at the very core of sufficientarian ideas. Absolute priority postulates that attention is to be focused on those whose well-being is below the threshold, and the utilities of those above the threshold only matter as a tie-breaker if the criterion to be applied below the threshold fails to be decisive. The feature that is novel to our approach is that we combine this fundamental sufficientarian principle with axioms that have a distinctly utilitarian flavor. This allows us to develop a sufficientarian theory that is based on utilitarian principles. Our most important observation is that our theory, which we refer to as critical-level sufficientarianism, necessarily follows as a consequence of adding the absolute-priority requirement to utilitarian axioms. The critical-level sufficientarian criteria represent an adaptation of critical-level generalized utilitarianism, a theory of justice that originates in the literature on population ethics. Critical-level generalized-utilitarian population principles are introduced in a fundamental contribution by Blackorby and Donaldson.33 Blackorby and Donaldson 1984, pp. 20–2. It employs a fixed critical level of utility that represents the level of well-being such that adding a person at that level does not change moral goodness, provided that no one else's utility is affected by this population augmentation. Our principles lexically apply critical-level generalized utilitarianism to those below the threshold first and, if this criterion results in equal goodness, use a critical-level generalized-utilitarian principle above the threshold as a tie-breaking device. In a sense, our theory can be seen as a refinement of Crisp's proposal which has been examined axiologically in a recent contribution by Hirose.44 Crisp 2003, pp. 755–63; Hirose 2016, pp. 62–4. Brown's absolute sufficientism is a special case of critical-level sufficientarianism.55 Brown 2005, p. 213. Section II reviews important variants of sufficientarianism that appear in the previous literature. The properties that we impose on sufficientarian principles are defined and defended in Section III. They include a formulation of a version of absolute priority compatible with most approaches that can be found in the requisite literature. The other properties that we impose are characteristic of generalized utilitarianism. Section IV presents the definition of our critical-level sufficientarian rankings as adaptations of the critical-level generalized-utilitarian population principles, and then provides the main result of the article—an axiomatic characterization of critical-level sufficientarianism. In Section V, we use well-established transfer principles to identify the subclass of our principles that are compatible with these conditions. Section VI concludes, and more formal statements of our properties as well as the proof of our characterization result appear in the Appendix. Frankfurt recommends “to distribute the available resources in such a way that as many people as possible have enough or, in other words, to maximize the incidence of sufficiency.”66 Frankfurt 1987, p. 31. His proposal, which is based on the number of those above the threshold, is characterized in a framework that focuses on opportunities (or chances of success) by Alcantud et al. 2019. See for an Frankfurt attention to a fixed does not matter the absolute number of people above the threshold is or a notion this number by population is Frankfurt this is the population is to for a of are above the that are and of these are above the The absolute number of who have enough but number to population an that this is a sufficientarian approach recommends this population augmentation. formulation is by who writes that a with above and many below that a is very well p. that a of criterion to a framework of the of the number of people above the threshold and the number of in the Frankfurt This proposal to the if the threshold of is as the point by is that as one from to above the threshold, an number of who the threshold below the a and one from below to above the threshold one from to p. This focuses on the of sufficientarian to distributional of is not by Our axiomatic these from a novel an axiologically more formulation of the approach and in this from Section III. version of sufficientarianism is by who the view that the threshold, people more the those people the more of those people and the the of the in Crisp 2003, p. His formulation can be as an to some of a theory of sufficientarianism. Crisp people below and above the threshold in a way that priority is to be to to those below the but the threshold, or in only below the threshold, no priority is to be to this proposal, a transfer from the to the is to be are axiological in Crisp's notion of sufficientarianism, absolute priority is to the utility of those below the those below the threshold, a transfer from a person to a person is and a transfer those above the threshold does not change to the sufficientarian The and are variants of transfer principles, which can be traced back to in Section that is not by The first requirement is compatible with and Crisp's and we use as of our core axiological principle of sufficientarianism. Crisp's proposal does not a of the requisite of if a person above the threshold below the threshold as a consequence of a of Crisp's that a transfer of this an important moral the sufficientarian formulation does not with the requirement that such a transfer is to be deemed a feature by Frankfurt Brown a criterion that he absolute sufficientism in the of well-being for a fixed Brown of criterion to a framework to be a special case of our This is in which Crisp's approach by the that are not by Crisp's Hirose 2016, p. Brown Hirose an axiomatic characterization of sufficientarian In we a of properties which we are for a notion of sufficientarianism, and a general class of sufficientarian principles which those of Brown and of Hirose as special Section a of Crisp's approach that a fundamental for sufficientarian in she writes that to Crisp's if a to below the threshold the of to the threshold, we are to This requirement is with a or a pp. Crisp possible to this is to the of absolute priority to those below the is provided by In a that view absolute priority to below a threshold and then some priority a p. an whose utility is the is not absolute priority, such a person is a moral those who are above the only the threshold a those who have absolute priority and those who have of this approach is that allows a the and the that formulation (or a can be of by of our It that critical-level sufficientarianism can the of the threshold Section the of more but does not assign absolute priority to in words, is 2005, p. See is that people the more priority are above the utility level at which these people the more of these people and the the of the in contribution from those of the in that is no threshold that an absolute of proposal a subclass of the generalized-utilitarian principles, as we in Section See Blackorby et al. utility as an of well-being and use the individual's utility is a of for that to and and goodness, p. It not only the of but that utilities are The threshold is a utility level to be Our main is to a sufficientarian criterion that utility special attention to who are below a threshold we consider properties of an of utility and identify the class of that these axioms. It is to population to are we a sufficientarian as a and that is to utility and the population and this article, we the of in utility that utility and with the same population can be the case that and represent the utility of the sufficientarian we consider are The of our criteria is by the of of the in a is provided by and Blackorby et al. a sufficientarian by and we to that is at as as from a sufficientarian The with is defined as if and only if and not and, the is by if and only if and for the sufficientarian in this article, does not matter those at the threshold level are of the or the criteria to be with to this This is a feature a of to these properties that we are for a sufficientarian the to we the requisite in a a more formal is provided in the Appendix. of these properties other absolute priority are by generalized utilitarianism, the of the utilitarian principle that employs with absolute priority, which we consider to be a core requirement of sufficientarianism, we a class of sufficientarian that have in the utilitarian of is in the we absolute priority to those below the This a sufficientarian criterion that one is for the people whose utilities are in the is as the of the utilities of those equal to or above the those whose utilities are or equal to matter to if are for those below in then only is by those at or above the This is with to as a that is important that people have pp. a that well-being above the threshold is The is by sufficientarian that appear in the of Crisp and of for Crisp 2003; Brown that is if the of is in the of the of many p. In an contribution on that the of have been the of for amount of for other 1987, p. The that absolute priority is to be to people below the threshold is by most as at the core of the of of that this is not for instance, of absolute 2005, point is well to us that some notion of absolute priority is at the core of sufficientarianism, and have in a theory that more a the of the literature that to the absolute-priority which is we this principle as our first the notion of absolute priority in of the sufficientarian are population and to a of people with utility below or at and people with utility above or at the threshold, and a that people with utility below or at and people with utility above or at consider the and in which everyone is below or at the the sufficientarian to be the first of the absolute-priority requirement that be of the utility of those above or at the the and of and the the if we have then we have The of absolute priority that if the of the and are to the of and is by the of and as in this does not matter we those at the threshold the or and this is in the of the Absolute population and for and if and are or equal to and and are or equal to then This is compatible with the proposal of Crisp Brown's absolute sufficientism a special case of our this Brown The formulation by which on the of the number of those who are above the threshold, does not this priority does Frankfurt This observation does not that absolute priority is with an which a is if the number of below the threshold for the is that for the this the Frankfurt and is to proposal if the population is these are with population are that the Frankfurt does absolute In this sense, a of approach is of absolute this the notion of absolute priority to those below the threshold in p. In absolute priority is with and The first a as well as a in the that the utilities of those above the threshold are as as is a based on those who are The of very It is a fundamental that that the criterion applied to utility from a sufficientarian does not on the to the in a that the utility and are to the sufficientarian one can be from the other by of the that and In to the utility in a to a that is population and for and if is by a to the utility in then is the that the principle is not See, for pp. that be in the that if everyone is at as well in one in with at one the is the to population and for and if for with at one then that if is are and with the same population such that for with at one but is not This is a general of the by p. that can be by of the to those of the and that this a fundamental of a of he to as pp. It is to that is to the same In this sense, can be as the of the of the variants of proposal to This is a fundamental with approach from an axiological point of Frankfurt properties are to the of the utilities of those who are those whose is the same in on the sufficientarian In a are variants of such a on apply population See Blackorby et al. In the of this article, is to attention to a fixed number of this is the case the is enough in the of our other most the absolute-priority In our those who are are the who the same of utility in the to be The that the of such of does not on the utilities of these if are in of well-being are for the an consider and with a population of in The with the utility are the and of the the same utility that if the utility of the are from to in the of the should is at as as if and only if is at as as properties are in an the of the well-being of who no on the critical these of is by 2016. are in with other that the criterion to be has an properties that the criteria in are in well-being is to on the a Blackorby et al. population and and for and an no and of absolute that the that the be of the of people below or at the threshold if those are deemed if with of absolute priority, does not of absolute The properties introduced in this are conditions. that in a utility not to in the In our we of these properties applied below and above the threshold, to the feature of the absolute-priority those below the threshold have absolute priority, is possible that a change in utility to a in the This can if we from a of below the threshold to a that is by the threshold and to the utilities above the threshold as the requisite properties be to that are at or or at or above the threshold level of that these properties are such as to if the person in a has a utility the person in the is the the in have the same level of then the utilities of the are and of the of from the to the these principles to properties of this that and are of the same population and everyone is at or below the threshold in and and that is to the sufficientarian below the threshold that of the same population that is to is provided that everyone in is at or below the below the population and for and such that everyone is at or below the threshold in that and are of the same population and everyone is at or above the threshold in and and that is to the sufficientarian above the threshold that of the same population that is to is provided that everyone in is at or above the above the population and for and such that everyone is at or above the threshold in Our proposal is to use critical-level sufficientarianism to the moral of utility is axiological for this criterion the requisite are the only that of the properties introduced in the previous critical-level sufficientarian is based on the of the utilities and the threshold the of utilities is a to generalized-utilitarian generalized utilitarianism, the introduced not these of in with the absolute-priority principle that at the of our sufficientarian first the of of the utilities from the threshold level for below the if this results in a the of the of the utility the threshold level for above the threshold is as a as to in the our approach utilitarian principles with sufficientarian ideas. the critical-level sufficientarian we some to identify the of those of a with population whose utilities in the are below the threshold if and follows that and have utilities below the the in the are those whose utilities in are above the threshold in the above we and have utilities above is not in of these or utility is below above is equal to the threshold those who are at the threshold not appear in this we not of the of the are affected by the existence of a person at the threshold the and which to the value of the at the in this definition of critical-level sufficientarianism is the that if is no one below the threshold in a the requisite is equal to and, if is no one above the threshold in the is of the that in a utility value not to in the value the this is the same as that the properties on in the previous is increasing if utility to and increasing a critical-level sufficientarian critical-level sufficientarianism is an class of sufficientarianism one such absolute priority to those below the This is the case the utilities of those at or above the threshold are only in case of a with to the criterion applied below formulation of defended by and the of utilities and, some to the critical-level sufficientarian of no notion of a threshold in the the critical-level sufficientarian that is The critical-level sufficientarian are to and by Blackorby and critical-level generalized-utilitarian principles from the literature on population Blackorby and Donaldson Brown's absolute sufficientism a special case that a to the utilities above the Brown that Brown's use of for above and below the threshold does not more this is the case a can be to possible of the those below and above the See p. 213. Hirose a special case of the critical-level sufficientarian criterion of Brown's the Hirose 2016. In the of the to below the threshold is and the of to at or above is the is or equal to The of below the threshold that the the transfer principle for these our in the Brown Hirose provides an axiomatic of not us with a of properties that identify In our critical-level sufficientarian are by an axiomatic The only sufficientarian that the properties introduced in the previous are the critical-level sufficientarian if absolute priority and properties for generalized utilitarianism are then a critical-level sufficientarian be This observation is in the characterization sufficientarian absolute priority, below the threshold, and above the threshold if and only if is a critical-level sufficientarian critical-level sufficientarian the which has in the literature on population ethics. In Blackorby and Donaldson the critical-level population principle in the of that are of utility with population Blackorby and Donaldson 1984, p. See 1984, pp. Blackorby et al. The principle the existence of a fixed critical level of critical level is a utility level with the that if a person who this critical level is to an population the utilities of who is this population is a matter of equal It is important to that the critical level is to be on the number or the utilities of those who are in In the of sufficientarianism, is a very way of this principle by the critical level to be equal to the threshold adding a person at this level to utility to a that is as as the This is in with our that does not matter at the threshold level is the or the the that we the same In of the a critical level in population and a threshold level in a sufficientarian is an important In population the existence of some critical level is the threshold level is to be be the utility in which an with the utility level of is to the the for our is defined as population and for to this follows from of the properties in In is by the of absolute priority and a fundamental this which is as in the that sufficientarian are to population as by Huseby our formulation of absolute priority is by most sufficientarian threshold is by a class of sufficientarian the and of approach threshold and the principles by and by Hirose 2016. Brown's absolute sufficientism is a sufficientarian principle threshold if the Brown This is the case the critical-level sufficientarian to the of Brown's absolute sufficientism to a most sufficientarian the by threshold we not that the necessarily has to apply to possible sufficientarian our observation the requirement of absolute priority is sufficientarian that not threshold can be This is an that is by our See et al. In that article, absolute priority is by to and the of which are below not equal the of our class with the Frankfurt is to the axiological of our characterization The absolute priority, threshold and above the It below the threshold if the requirement is to the This that the axiological critical-level sufficientarianism and the Frankfurt in the with the to a general of the is the in of the critical-level sufficientarian approach is not to this the distributional of the critical-level sufficientarian and our class with this we consider axioms The principle of has been the of for a See the fundamental of and It that if a transfer from a person to a person the of the then the is the version that the is at as See Crisp 2003, who sufficientarian principles with to the of on in the variants of the transfer that focuses on below the threshold, one for above and one that on the of a transfer if the below the threshold as a consequence of the of are for the same The which the of the requisite principle is that the utility of the at as as the utility of the in to the of the and the of is that the utility of the a transfer in the amount of is or equal to the utility of the Our transfer principles represent this requirement by that for the utilities and of the and the and utilities and The transfer principles defined below in the of the and the utility to the threshold of below the population for and for and and for transfer amount if and for from and then of above the population for and for and and for transfer amount if and for from and then of the population for and for and and for transfer amount if and for from and then It is well that the of the transfer principle is to the of the in is for utility and the value of a of and with and is the of the and the same are In for utility and and for and the value of the be the of the that are which is the is to the principle of In the of critical-level sufficientarian each of the first principles defined above that the requisite of be we the result which we a sufficientarian absolute priority, below the threshold, above the threshold, the principle of below the threshold, and the principle of above the threshold if and only if is a critical-level sufficientarian and the of the to utility or equal to and to utility or equal to are does not that be of that is is below and at the threshold, and above and at the for the to the in is a of the class characterized in the of this are the class of characterized in the above from Brown's threshold Brown 2005, p. principles apply that are such as that in the This that Brown's special of the more general class in this that the of the of for utility and be the of the of for utility and this follows from the definition of that the principle of the threshold is as a consequence of the principle of below the See for an not a transfer principle that to in which the of a transfer the threshold at or below the threshold, and the of this transfer at or above This of transfer principle is by of the critical-level sufficientarian the of the by the and one of This to an the is is no to the case in which the of a transfer from a below the threshold to a utility level above this the of the has one that or the threshold level is no and, as a the requisite but for increasing Crisp the principle of below the threshold, but he the principle of above the threshold in Crisp 2003, pp. he that a sufficientarian criterion should be with to above the threshold, can be by a critical-level sufficientarian that the of the to utility or equal to is as to of such a is provided in that Crisp's proposal can be by a that is above the threshold in the Crisp's proposal as a special case of the class in consider p. she that be a threshold such that everyone below is absolute priority, and a threshold such that those and not have absolute priority but are to those above In the critical-level sufficientarian that to are by a that is below the threshold and more the and above the threshold The in such a The in the is with to the and above the threshold an that a in these can be In the we have a special case of the characterized in and, transfer principles are and the defined by the The proposal by 2005, pp. pp. he absolute priority and, as a sufficientarian principles that can be by of generalized-utilitarian See, for instance, Blackorby et al. utilitarianism employs a and increasing but does not special of those below a to the critical-level sufficientarian is no priority and, is more The is by that the criterion is more in that represent of the utility for a that this is provided in with The is with a to that the requirement is is possible to employ that this but whose to the requisite are of in the case of to the principle of if as a that to possible utility transfer principle that is or the by the can be with a that some of our of the principles have in the previous literature in Brown's represents the first in which these principles are Brown Our in of these by that are the only the requisite we an principles that are from the literature on population and can be sufficientarian Our of the transfer principles is in that possible the of the and the of a transfer to the threshold to the with population one characteristic of the critical-level sufficientarian is that employ a threshold that is to the critical level of critical-level generalized-utilitarian population principles. This is a feature that is by Brown's principles of absolute sufficientism and threshold which as special of the It be to the to which this the of or, more that are in the the properties of a sufficientarian can be as Absolute for for for and for and for if is by a to the of then and for if for with at one then for and for below the and for the above the and for the The result that threshold follows from of the properties in the of a sufficientarian absolute priority and then threshold that and by follows that consider the proof by that or the follows that and such that the above and, by of absolute priority, of proof that the critical-level sufficientarian absolute priority, below the threshold, and above the threshold are available It to that if the then is a critical-level sufficientarian that the threshold is and the of to and to The properties of and threshold are by these in the that are for in the requisite identify the properties by adding the the or the to the of the is follows that by definition and, by of absolute priority, we and threshold we and is we the same we by the of we we and by of absolute priority that if and only if we the same as that we It follows that and by of absolute priority that if and only if we is and and threshold this The properties in our characterization are are available