Why be a relational egalitarian?

Relational egalitarians claim that a situation is just only if everyone it involves relates to one another as equals. It implies that relational egalitarians believe the ideal of "living as equals" (for short) is desirable, and furthermore, necessary for justice. In this paper, I distinguish three accounts of the desirability of the ideal: the instrumental value account, the non-instrumental value account, and the non-consequentialist account. I argue that the former two accounts cannot provide satisfying reasons for being a relational egalitarian. Instead, the ideal of "living as equals" ought to be understood as fundamentally a moral requirement in a non-consequentialist sense. In addition, a pluralist (though fundamentally non-consequentialist) approach is welcome.