Sinking Cohen's Flagship — or Why People with Expensive Tastes Should not be Compensated
Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):341-354 (2011)
| Abstract | G. A. Cohen argues that egalitarians should compensate for expensive tastes or for the fact that they are expensive. Ronald Dworkin, by contrast, regards most expensive tastes as unworthy of compensation — only if a person disidentifies with his own such tastes (i.e. wishes he did not have them) is compensation appropriate. Dworkinians appeal, inter alia, to the so-called ‘first-person’ or ‘continuity’ test. According to the continuity test, an appropriate standard of interpersonal comparison reflects people's own assessment of their relative standing: Person A can only legitimately demand compensation from person B if he regards himself as worse off, all things considered, than B. The typical bearer of expensive tastes does not regard herself as being worse off than others with less expensive tastes. Hence, in the typical case, pace Cohen, compensation for expensive tastes is inappropriate. The article scrutinizes this rationale for not compensating for expensive tastes. Especially, we try to bolster the continuity test by relating it to Dworkin's distinction between integrated and detached values, pointing out that an argument for the continuity test can be built on the assumption that equality has integrated value. In brief, the point is that a metric of equality should be assessed, partly, in virtue of its consequences for related ideals. One of these is the kind of justificatory community promoted by the continuity test. We defend this view against an objection to the effect that equality is a detached value. We conclude that the continuity test constitutes a strong foothold for the resourcist egalitarian reluctance to compensate people for their expensive tastes | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCarl Knight (2009). Egalitarian Justice and Valuational Judgment. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (4):482-498.
Louis Kaplow (2006). Choosing Expensive Tastes. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (3):415-425.
Simon Keller (2002). Expensive Tastes and Distributive Justice. Social Theory and Practice 28 (4):529-552.
Jonathan Quong (2006). Cultural Exemptions, Expensive Tastes, and Equal Opportunities. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):53–71.
Michael McGann (2012). Equal Treatment and Exemptions. Social Theory and Practice 38 (1):1-32.
Peter Vallentyne (1991). The Problem of Unauthorized Welfare. Noûs 25:295-321.
Rodney G. Peffer, What is to Be Distributed? The Paideia Project.
G. A. Cohen (2004). Expensive Taste Rides Again. In Ronald Dworkin & Justine Burley (eds.), Dworkin and His Critics: With Replies by Dworkin. Blackwell Pub..
Michael Otsuka (2010). Justice as Fairness: Luck Egalitarian, Not Rawlsian. Journal of Ethics 14 (3-4):217-230.
Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (2004). Prankster's Ethics. Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):45–52.
Cristina Ionescu (2008). Plato's Understanding of Pleasure in the Philebus. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:1-18.
Merle Spriggs (2008). The Ethics of Research on Less Expensive, Less Effective Interventions: A Case for Analysis. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4).
Antoine Billot (2002). The Deep Side of Preference Theory. Theory and Decision 53 (3):243-270.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-08-18Total downloads20 ( #61,533 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,087 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
