The Ethics of Limitarianism: Exploring Ingrid Robeyns’ Philosophy

In her influential work, Limitarianism, philosopher Ingrid Robeyns presents a
thought-provoking argument on the ethical boundaries of wealth accumulation.
Limitarianism, as defined by Robeyns, is the moral stance that individuals should not
accumulate more wealth than what is necessary to lead a decent life. This concept
challenges some of the deep-rooted norms of capitalist societies, where the pursuit of
unlimited wealth is often seen as a sign of success. Robeyns asks us to reconsider this
assumption and to reflect on the ethical implications of extreme wealth in a world
marked by inequality and finite resources.

In part of her research, she refers to a book by the French economist Thomas
Piketty “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”. Piketty and his international team
gathered an enormous amount of new data, much of it derived from historical sources
that had largely been left unconsidered. This work reinforced one of the most widely
accepted views: namely, that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, inequality
had indeed fallen in many of the wealthy nations. It was a war that was an equalizer of a
harsh nature, since many large fortunes were destroyed by it, and there was thus a
common determination to rebuild a society in which all could thrive. Nevertheless,
Piketty’s data showed a break around the late 1970s, from which point inequalities in
income-and even more in wealth-started to climb with steady regularity. Piketty dared
to challenge the assumption that extreme inequality was a relic of the feudal past and
warned that, without political action, society could slide back into a quasi-feudal state
where a tiny elite holds most resources, while a majority has very little.

What is Limitarianism?
Limitarianism is based on the idea that there should be an upper limit to how much
wealth one individual can morally hold. According to Robeyns, this limit is not arbitrary
but stems from the observation that excessive wealth does not contribute
meaningfully to human flourishing beyond a certain point. Once a person has sufficient
resources to live comfortably and securely, additional wealth tends to have diminishing
returns on well-being.

She criticizes theories that justify inequality, namely the so-called “trickle-down
effect”. This theory states that if the rich get richer through tax cuts, the more they will
invest in creating jobs for others, and thus slowly their wealth trickle down to the poor
and middle class. In the process, this generation of policies for the rich eventually leads
to the welfare of the world at large, although it creates inequality for a time. However,
this hypothesis has repeatedly been proved wrong by empirical facts.

Tax cuts for the wealthy have been demonstrated to increase inequality without any
significant economic gain in growth or reduction in unemployment. Even the
International Monetary Fund-which traditionally has been hand in glove with neoliberal
policies of growth-oriented policies-admits that the wealth doesn’t trickle down.

Robeyns is not arguing for radical equality, where everyone must have the same
amount of wealth. Instead, she argues that beyond a certain threshold of wealth, the
moral justification for accumulating more weakens. While inequality is often justified on
the grounds of merit or personal freedom, Robeyns’ theory suggests that excessive
wealth hoarding can be ethically problematic when it occurs in a world where many
people lack basic necessities.

The Ethical Grounds for Limitarianism

One of Robeyns‘ primary justifications for limitarianism is its potential to address
social justice issues. In a world where millions live in poverty, the concentration of
excessive wealth in the hands of a few seems morally questionable and Robeyns
suggests that “in a limitarian world, we would find much less poverty and far fewer
unmet needs.”.

And beyond this, the funds from the increase in tax revenue would allow us to tackle
“collective-action problems,” too. Robeyns believes that resources, including financial
capital, are finite, and the excessive accumulation of wealth by a small group limits the
resources available for improving the lives of others. She suggests that redistributing
wealth beyond a certain limit could help tackle global poverty, improve access to
healthcare, education, and environmental sustainability.

Another ethical foundation of limitarianism is its concern with power imbalances.
Wealth is not only about material goods; it also translates into political and social
influence. In highly unequal societies, the ultra-wealthy often have disproportionate
power over political decisions, economic policies, and media narratives, which can
undermine democratic processes.

But In what ways is democracy threatened by concentrated wealth? Above all, it
distorts group decision-making; no group’s objectives should take precedence only
because they have more power. Citizens must have access to reliable information for
democracy to function, but income inequality erodes this, having a significant impact
on key democratic institutions. Facts and logic, not coercion, lies, or manipulation,
should be the foundation of policy. However, this necessitates colleges dedicated to
impartial research, a free press with the means and integrity to report honestly, and an
independent court to fairly settle disputes. These are the very institutions that must be
safeguarded if we wish to prevent the slide into tyranny, as historian Timothy Snyder
cautions. Limitarianism seeks to curb these imbalances, arguing that by setting limits
on wealth, we can foster fairer and more equal societies.

While Robeyns’ arguments for Limitarianism are compelling, they are met with
several objections that she addresses directly.

Addressing Objections
Robeyns acknowledges that limitarianism faces several objections. One common
criticism is that setting wealth limits could stifle innovation and economic growth.
Wealth, in capitalist economies, is often seen as a motivator for entrepreneurship and
progress. Robeyns counters this by arguing that innovation and economic
development do not necessarily depend on unlimited wealth. In fact, many innovators
are driven by factors other than personal enrichment, such as the desire to solve social
problems, pursue scientific curiosity, or achieve recognition. Furthermore,
redistribution policies could be designed in ways that encourage sustainable innovation
and long-term economic health, rather than fostering inequality.

Another objection comes from libertarians who argue that wealth accumulation is a
matter of personal freedom, and setting limits on it would infringe on individual rights.

Robeyns argues that, because wealth depends on social resources and systems, it is
ethically justifiable to redistribute it for collective benefits. Robeyns responds by
highlighting the social nature of wealth. No one generates wealth in isolation; it is
always dependent on societal factors like infrastructure, education, and public services.
Therefore, wealth must be understood as a collective resource, which justifies
redistributing excessive amounts to benefit society as a whole.

Conclusion
Ingrid Robeyns’ Limitarianism offers a radical yet timely ethical framework for
addressing the moral challenges of wealth inequality. By proposing a limit to personal
wealth accumulation, Robeyns encourages us to rethink the relationship between
wealth, well-being, and justice.

Robeyns’ philosophy urges policymakers and society to reconsider how wealth is
distributed to foster collective well-being.

In an era of growing economic disparity and environmental crisis, limitarianism
invites both philosophical and practical discussions about how resources should be
shared to ensure a fairer, more sustainable world.