Christine Sypnowich discusses her work on egalitarianism. She begins by reflecting on what drew her to political philosophy and explains how philosophers such as John Rawls and G.A. Cohen first showed that it was possible in fact to do political philosophy, and moreover radical political philosophy, within the analytic tradition – to make and defend normative claims such as those about the right to private property and about our obligations to others in our political community. Sypnowich is then critical of Rawls’s commitment to liberal neutrality (the idea that the state ought to remain neutral with respect to citizens’ different conceptions of the good life) and makes the case for a kind of egalitarianism that takes seriously a substantive conception of human flourishing. Sypnowich goes on to discuss some of her past work, which challenges the common Marxist thought that an ideal society is one that would have no need for law. Towards the end, she returns to the theme of Rawls’s liberal neutrality and connects this to a residual scientism that she contends Rawls inherits from the logical positivists. Christine Sypnowich is Professor of Philosophy at Queen’s University.