David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):107-116 (2012)
This essay argues that David Miller's criticisms of global egalitarianism do not undermine the view where it is stated in one of its stronger, luck egalitarian forms. The claim that global egalitarianism cannot specify a metric of justice which is broad enough to exclude spurious claims for redistribution, but precise enough to appropriately value different kinds of advantage, implicitly assumes that cultural understandings are the only legitimate way of identifying what counts as advantage. But that is an assumption always or almost always rejected by global egalitarianism. The claim that global egalitarianism demands either too little redistribution, leaving the unborn and dissenters burdened with their societies' imprudent choices, or too much redistribution, creating perverse incentives by punishing prudent decisions, only presents a problem for global luck egalitarianism on the assumption that nations can legitimately inherit assets from earlier generations – again, an assumption very much at odds with global egalitarian assumptions.
|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
R. J. Arneson (1999). Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.
Richard Arneson (2000). Welfare Should Be the Currency of Justice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30 (4):497-524.
Richard J. Arneson (1989). Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.
G. A. Cohen (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics 99 (4):906-944.
R. M. Dworkin (2003). Equality, Luck and Hierarchy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (2):190–198.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rekha Nath (2011). Equal Standing in the Global Community. The Monist 94 (4):593-614.
Chris Armstrong (2009). Global Egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):155-171.
Carl Knight (2005). In Defence of Luck Egalitarianism. Res Publica 11 (1):1-10.
Christian Barry & Pablo Gilabert (2008). Does Global Egalitarianism Provide an Impractical and Unattractive Ideal of Justice? International Affairs 84 (5):1025-1039.
Carl Knight & Roger Knight (2012). Equality and Information. Ethical Perspectives 19 (3):469-499.
Sagar Sanyal (2009). Political Equality and Global Poverty: An Alternative Egalitarian Approach to Distributive Justice. Dissertation, University of Canterbury
Carl Knight (2006). The Metaphysical Case for Luck Egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189.
Kok-Chor Tan (2012). Justice, Institutions, and Luck: The Site, Ground, and Scope of Equality. OUP Oxford.
Chris Armstrong (2011). Citizenship, Egalitarianism and Global Justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (5):603-621.
David Miller (2005). Against Global Egalitarianism. Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):55 - 79.
Carl Knight (2011). In Defence of Cosmopolitanism. Theoria 58 (129):19-34.
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.
Daniel M. Hausman & Matt Sensat Waldren (2012). Egalitarianism Reconsidered. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (4):567-586.
Ryan Long (2011). The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism. Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.
Added to index2012-09-10
Total downloads16 ( #102,879 of 1,101,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,958 of 1,101,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?