It is more difficult to respond to Freeman's comments because they lack the focus and clarity of Arneson's. In part, Freeman treats his readers to an exposition of Rawls's position. His assumption seems to be that the repetition of the position on which my arguments aim to cast doubt is sufficient to lay the doubts to rest. But it is not. Another part of Freeman's comments consists in attributing to me criticisms of egalitarianism which I have not expressed and do not hold, and then defending egalitarianism against them by claiming that I have misunderstood it.
Inequalities are serious if they affect primary goods, which are necessary for living a good life.
Overcoming unjustified inequalities requires the redistribution of primary goods. I then point out that the life expectancy of men and women is unequal because men tend to have one-tenth shorter life than women. Since life expectancy is a primary good, and since the unequal life expectancy of men and women is both serious and unjustified, egalitarians must find it morally objectionable and must adopt policies to eliminate or reduce this inequality. These policies, however, are absurd. The question arises, therefore, whether other policies favored by egalitarians to overcome other inequalities are not similarly absurd.