What do you think?
Rate this book
Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism
Having Too Much is the first academic volume devoted to the idea that the use of economic or ecosystem resources should not exceed certain limits.This concept has deep roots in economic and political thought. One can find similar statements of such limits in thinkers such as Plato, Aquinas, and Spinoza. But Having Too Much is the first time in contemporary political philosophy that limitarianism is explored at length and in detail.Bringing together in one place the best writing from key theorists of limitarianism, this book is an essential contribution to political philosophy in general, and theories of distributive justice in particular. Including some of the key published articles as well as new chapters, Having Too Much is necessary reading for scholars and students of political theory and philosophy, as well as anyone interested in questions of distributive justice.
530 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 19, 2023
7 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 1, 2025
“Limitarianism is the view that it is unjust (or bad) if people are very rich. Nobody should have wealth above a certain line, the limitarian threshold. The key arguments against having too much are twofold. First, large distributive inequalities threaten democratic equality (because money comes with power and can corrupt politics.)”
Second because the resources should be put toward the “urgent unmet needs” of the underclass.
And thirdly, because there are planetary constraints to development and something has to give.
There are several ways to identify the limitarian threshold. First, one may argue that there is something like a riches line, above which more money brings nothing of moral value to those who hold it. In other words, at some point, more wealth does nothing for our objective wellbeing (although we might like to have more).
The riches line assumes satiability, a limit to our capacity to convert cash into objective wellbeing.
Some of the essays in this collection are impenetrable. But the sentiments have merit. They remind us that it’s probably a good time to read — if you haven’t — Rawls on distributive justice, Nussbaum and Adam Smith on moral sentiments, and for good measure, John Locke.
Second because the resources should be put toward the “urgent unmet needs” of the underclass.
And thirdly, because there are planetary constraints to development and something has to give.
There are several ways to identify the limitarian threshold. First, one may argue that there is something like a riches line, above which more money brings nothing of moral value to those who hold it. In other words, at some point, more wealth does nothing for our objective wellbeing (although we might like to have more).
The riches line assumes satiability, a limit to our capacity to convert cash into objective wellbeing.
Some of the essays in this collection are impenetrable. But the sentiments have merit. They remind us that it’s probably a good time to read — if you haven’t — Rawls on distributive justice, Nussbaum and Adam Smith on moral sentiments, and for good measure, John Locke.
October 26, 2024
Very academic so you need to take pauses but I find this so thorough and compelling, addressing the subject of superfluous wealth and all the arguments against it.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews