 A problem for both strict and luck egalitarian views, however, is that they are subject to the leveling down objection, for unjust inequalities in health may be addressed either by improving the health of those who are unfairly worse off or leveling down the health of those who are unfairly better off (Segall 2010). If A’s life expectancy is 10 years shorter than B’s due to cancer, this inequality may be addressed either by treating A’s cancer or damaging B’s health. Similarly, if one holds that health inequalities between social groups are unjust, one may be committed to the conclusion that deteriorations in the health of members of advantaged social groups are good—at least in one respect—when they reduce such inequalities. For example, one may be committed to the questionable claim that the rise of “deaths of despair” among white Americans in the twenty-first century (see Case &amp; Deaton 2015, 2020) is in one respect good since it reduced inequalities in life expectancy among white Americans and Black Americans (for a thoughtful discussion of this issue, see Blacksher 2018).