According to the ‘leveling down objection’, (teleological) egalitarianism implausibly implies that it can be in one respect good to bring about equality, even if no-one benefits from it. Larry Temkin has argued that this objection presupposes a principle he calls the ‘slogan’. And he has raised two objections to this principle. According to the first, the slogan gets us into trouble when applied to the so-called ‘non-identity problem’. According to the second, the slogan cannot be supported by a substantial theory of well-being. Against this, I argue that if suitably (and plausibly) modified, the slogan does not get us into trouble when applied to the non-identity problem. And I argue that Temkin’s case for thinking that the slogan cannot be supported is hardly conclusive.
