In this response to David Rondel’s Pragmatist Egalitarianism, I suggest that the disagreement between vertical egalitarians and horizontal egalitarians has deeper roots than Rondel acknowledges. Using feminist egalitarianism as my example, I suggest that this is because Rondel fails to note that horizontal egalitarians do not merely offer an alternative account of the sites of and remedies for inequality than do vertical egalitarians; they also see vertical egalitarianism itself as contributing to inequality. Yet I also contend that, even though the two sides of the vertical-horizontal debate are more divided than Rondel lets on, a pragmatist egalitarianism, because of its emphasis on problem-solving, is still able to circumvent this debate.

在对戴维·隆德尔的实用主义平等主义的回应中，我认为垂直平等主义者和水平平等主义者之间的分歧比隆德尔所承认的更为深远。以女权主义的平等主义为例，我认为这是因为隆德尔没有注意到，与纵向的平等主义者相比，横向的平等主义者不仅提供了不平等现象的根源和补救方法，而且还没有提供替代性的解释。他们还认为纵向平均主义本身就是造成不平等的原因。但是我也认为，尽管纵向和横向辩论的双方分歧比隆德尔所允许的要多，但实用主义的平均主义由于强调解决问题而仍然能够绕开这场辩论。