The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Social Equality: On What It Means to be Equals
Abstract
The first collected volume on social and relational equality. Addresses a gap in the literature - while many philosophers have pointed to the importance of social equality, it requires much more theoretical development, which this volume aims to provide. Offers a unique answer to the debate about whether or not equality is valuable. Features a foreword by eminent political theorist David Miller Includes new contributions by some of the most well-known contemporary moral and political philosophers, such as Samuel Scheffler and Jonathan Wolff. Is equality valuable? This question dominates many discussions of social justice, which tend to center on whether certain forms of distributive equality are valuable, such as the equal distribution of primary social goods. But these discussions often neglect what is known as social or relational equality. Social equality suggests that equality is foremost about relationships and interactions between people, rather than being primarily about distribution. A number of philosophers have written about the significance of social equality, and it has also played an important role in real-life egalitarian movements, such as feminism and civil rights movements. However, as it has been relatively neglected in comparison to the debates about distributive equality, it requires much more theoretical attention. This volume brings together a collection of ten original essays which present new analyses of social and relational equality in philosophy and…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“If we move beyond a limited notion of equality as being no more than a merely distributive ideal, in favor of the richer and more substantive ideal of social or relational egalitarianism that I (among many others) have explored in some detail elsewhere, then we quickly see that the egalitarian perspective is precisely a perspective from which we have good reason to want to limit the scope of the”
From Public Provision in Democratic Societies (2024) · cites this paper as Fourie et al. 2015
Citations
Cited by
Public Provision in Democratic Societies
O’Neill, M. (2024) · Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics · doi:10.23941/ejpe.v16i2.823 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Fourie, C., Schuppert, F., & Wallimann-Helmer, I.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2015-01-06
- OpenAlex
- W1483092127
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
- Keywords
- social equality, relational equality, distributive equality, social justice, egalitarianism, political theory, ethics, feminism, civil rights movement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Equality: On What It Means to be Equals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199331109.001.0001
- The paper
- Fourie, C., Schuppert, F., & Wallimann-Helmer, I. (2015). Social Equality: On What It Means to be Equals. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199331109.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.