In individual decision making, we face the question of how to evaluate a gamble, given that it can turn out well in some possible states of the world and poorly in others—we face the question of how risk matters. In societal decision making, we face the question of how to evaluate a social distribution, given that it can turn out well for some people and poorly for others—we face the question of how inequality matters. The orthodox answer to the risk question is that we should maximize expected utility. Philosophers disagree about the answer to the equality question, and there are currently three competing answers in the literature: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism. In this talk, Buchak argues for new answers to both of these questions, answers that are related to one another. In individual decision making, she claims that rational individuals can place more weight on bad outcomes than good outcomes within a particular gamble, or vice versa, without thinking that taking or avoiding risks has any inherent value. In societal decision making, she claims that benefits to the worst off matter more than benefits to the best off, because they are worse off in a relative sense, but not because equality has intrinsic value.