The article assesses recent attempts to deflect two persistent objections to Positive Egalitarianism (PE), the view that equality adds to the goodness of a state of affairs. The first says that PE entails bringing into existence individuals who are equal to each other in leading horrible lives, such that they are worth not living. I assess three strategies for deflecting this objection: offering a restricted version of PE; biting the bullet; and pressing a levelling out counter-objection. The second objection points out that for any world A containing many individuals all leading very satisfying lives, and in perfect equality, PE prefers a much larger, perfectly equal population Z with much lower (yet positive) well-being. I review two main strategies for avoiding this Repellent Conclusion: a Capped Model and making egalitarianism sensitive to welfare levels. Both solutions, I show, are worse than the problems they are meant to solve.

中文翻译：

---

为什么我们应该对积极的平等主义持否定态度

这篇文章评估了最近试图转移对积极平等主义 (PE) 的两种持续反对意见的尝试，这种观点认为平等会增加事态的好处。第一个说 PE 需要创造出在可怕的生活中彼此平等的个人，这样他们就值得不是活的。我评估了三种转移这种反对意见的策略：提供受限版本的 PE；咬紧牙关；并按下拉平反异议。第二个反对意见指出，对于任何包含许多个人都过着非常令人满意的生活的世界 A，并且在完全平等的情况下，PE 更喜欢更大的、完全平等的人口 Z，但幸福感要低得多（但积极的）。我回顾了避免这种令人厌恶的结论的两种主要策略：上限模型和使平等主义对福利水平敏感。我表明，这两种解决方案都比它们要解决的问题更糟糕。