The Argument from Unmet Urgent Needs Does Not Support Limitarianism

Abstract The essay demonstrates that the argument from unmet urgent needs does not support limitarianism, which is a (partial) theory of justice that holds that there should be an upper limit on wealth. The argument, which has been used in support of limitarianism, leads to the conclusion that we should redistribute resources to combat extreme poverty. However, a concern for unmet urgent needs does not establish whose resources should be redistributed for that purpose. It is consistent with redistribution both above and/or below some limitarian threshold. Such an upper limit would thus have to be supported by other reasons, such as the democratic argument or a concern for justice at the top. Contrary to what limitarians have suggested, the argument from unmet urgent needs has a rather limited relevance for limitarianism. The essay will outline the argument and the problem with its use in support of limitarianism, followed by a discussion and rejection of three strategies that limitarians could adopt to make the argument relevant.