This article critiques the arguments against global egalitarianism put forth by critics who are themselves egalitarian. The authors consider seven types of such criticisms, each pointing to a specific disanalogy between domestic and international arenas which allegedly justifies the restriction of principles of egalitarian justice to the former. Such disanalogies include social cooperation, state coercion, appropriate agency, national responsibility, shared social meanings, and feasibility.
The authors conclude that none of these criticisms, individually or jointly, is sufficient to refute the ethical considerations that underlie global egalitarianism. This analysis points toward ways in which egalitarian doctrines must be further strengthened if they are to offer a convincing response to questions of international ethics and global justice. Whether they can do so remains an open question.
