Responsibility for inequalities
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper aims to specify the precise conditions under which an agent is responsible for inequalities. Admittedly, the careful examination of the conditions in question has been the main focus of contemporary egalitarianism. As a matter of fact, contemporary political philosophers take responsibility to be a core conception which in principle justifies inequalities. In particular, they tend to flesh out the conception of responsibility in terms of choice, in such a way that we should hold individuals responsible for chosen inequalities but not for unchosen inequalities. This core idea is intuitively appealing because, on the one hand, alleviation of inequalities that people do not choose would thereby be encouraged, and on the other hand, it avoids an egalitarian ‘moral hazard’: the situation in which people need care nothing for the consequences (economic or otherwise) of their own choice. G. A. Cohen thus goes so far as to say that egalitarianism successfully incorporates “within it the most powerful idea in the arsenal of the anti-egalitarian right: the idea of choice and responsibility.”.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kasper Lippert-rasmussen (2004). Are Some Inequalities More Unequal Than Others? Nature, Nurture and Equality. Utilitas 16 (2):193-219.
H. De Schutter & L. Ypi (2012). Language and Luck. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (4):357-381.
Timothy Hinton (2002). Choice and Luck in Recent Egalitarian Thought. Philosophical Papers 31 (2):145-167.
Carl Knight (2005). In Defence of Luck Egalitarianism. Res Publica 11 (1):1-10.
Daniel M. Hausman, Yukiko Asada & Thomas Hedemann (2002). Health Inequalities and Why They Matter. Health Care Analysis 10 (2):177-191.
Andrew Mason (2000). XI: Equality, Personal Responsibility, and Gender Socialisation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (3):227–246.
Serena Olsaretti (2009). Responsibility and the Consequences of Choice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt2):165-188.
Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden (2006). Relocating the Responsibility Cut: Should More Responsibility Imply Less Redistribution? Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (3):353-362.
Carl Knight (2009). Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh University Press.
Gideon Elford (2013). Equality of Opportunity and Other-Affecting Choice: Why Luck Egalitarianism Does Not Require Brute Luck Equality. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):139-149.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #444,558 of 1,934,372 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?