David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
South African Journal of Philosophy 31 (2):541-559 (2012)
This article explores the Rawlsian goal of ensuring that distributions are not influenced by the morally arbitrary. It does so by bringing discussions of distributive justice into contact with the debate over moral luck initiated by Williams and Nagel. Rawls’ own justice as fairness appears to be incompatible with the arbitrariness commitment, as it creates some equalities arbitrarily. A major rival, Dworkin’s version of brute luck egalitarianism, aims to be continuous with ordinary ethics, and so is (a) sensitive to non-philosophical beliefs about free will and responsibility, and (b) allows inequalities to arise on the basis of option luck. But Dworkin does not present convincing reasons in support of continuity, and there are compelling moral reasons for justice to be sensitive to the best philosophical account of free will and responsibility, as is proposed by the revised brute luck egalitarianism of Arneson and Cohen. While Dworkinian brute luck egalitarianism admits three sorts of morally arbitrary disadvantaging which correspond to three forms of moral luck (constitutive, circumstantial, and option luck), revised brute luck egalitarianism does not disadvantage on the basis of constitutive or circumstantial luck. But it is not as sensitive to responsibility as it needs to be to fully extinguish the influence of the morally arbitrary, for persons under it may exercise their responsibility equivalently yet end up with different outcomes on account of option luck. It is concluded that egalitarians should deny the existence of distributive luck, which is luck in the levels of advantage that individuals are due.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Martin E. Sandbu (2004). On Dworkin’s Brute-Luck–Option-Luck Distinction and the Consistency of Brute-Luck Egalitarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (3):283-312.
Ryan Long (2011). The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism. Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.
Carl Knight (2013). Egalitarian Justice and Expected Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1061-1073.
Carl Knight (2006). The Metaphysical Case for Luck Egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189.
Carl Knight (2011). Inequality, Avoidability, and Healthcare. Iyyun 60:72-88.
Carl Knight (2009). Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh University Press.
H. De Schutter & L. Ypi (2012). Language and Luck. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (4):357-381.
Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska Carl (2011). Responsibility and Distributive Justice: An Introduction. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press.
Timothy Hinton (2002). Choice and Luck in Recent Egalitarian Thought. Philosophical Papers 31 (2):145-167.
Kristin Voigt (2007). The Harshness Objection: Is Luck Egalitarianism Too Harsh on the Victims of Option Luck? [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):389 - 407.
Carl Knight (2011). Responsibility, Desert, and Justice. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2005). Hurley on Egalitarianism and the Luck-Neutralizing Aim. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (2):249-265.
Richard Arneson (2004). Luck Egalitarianism Interpretated and Defended. Philosophical Topics 32 (1/2):1-20.
Added to index2012-09-10
Total downloads78 ( #13,529 of 1,017,241 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #10,346 of 1,017,241 )
How can I increase my downloads?