Two recent collections of papers—Social Equality: On What It Means to Be Equals, edited by Carina Fourie, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (Fourie et al. 2015) and The Equal Society: Essays on Equality in Theory and Practice, edited by George Hull (Hull 2015)—demonstrate well the wide diversity of perspectives on egalitarianism within political theory today. But there are unifying themes amidst all this diversity. In particular, these collections make plain the extent to which contemporary egalitarianism in all forms is indebted to Rawls. This debt is reflected, for example, in the luck egalitarianism/social egalitarian debate which plays a central role in both books. It is also reflected in the concern so many contemporary egalitarians have for respect and its social basis. But while egalitarianism today owes much to Rawls, this does not mean that Rawls has nothing left to contribute to the conversation. This essay will argue that a return to Rawls can help contemporary egalitarians avoid taking their debates in certain unproductive directions.

最近的两篇论文集——社会平等：论平等意味着什么，由 Carina Fourie、Fabian Schuppert 和 Ivo Wallimann-Helmer 编辑（Fourie 等人，2015 年）和平等社会：理论与实践中的平等论文集，由 George Hull 编辑（Hull 2015）——很好地展示了当今政治理论中平等主义观点的广泛多样性。但是在所有这些多样性中都有统一的主题。特别是，这些收藏清楚地表明了当代各种形式的平等主义在多大程度上归功于罗尔斯。例如，这种债务反映在运气平等主义/社会平等主义辩论中，这在这两本书中都发挥了核心作用。这也反映在许多当代平等主义者对尊重及其社会基础的关注上。但是，虽然今天的平等主义在很大程度上要归功于罗尔斯，但这并不意味着罗尔斯对这场对话没有任何贡献。本文将争辩说，回归罗尔斯可以帮助当代平等主义者避免将他们的辩论引向某些非生产性的方向。