David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189 (2006)
Some critics of luck egalitarianism have suggested that its reference to responsibility leaves it either assuming metaphysical libertarianism or (in the inevitable absence of a resolution of the free will problem) practically impotent. This paper argues that luck egalitarianism need not fall into either trap. It may in fact be sensitive to the possibility that libertarianism is false, and would not be undermined were this the case. Here luck egalitarianism actually fares better than outcome egalitarianism, which assumes, in just the way luck egalitarianism allegedly does, a controversial metaphysical position. There is, moreover, little difficulty in applying luck egalitarianism in practical contexts on the basis of our best guess about the relevant metaphysical questions. This solution is, of course, non-ideal, but appears preferable to the alternatives, such as simply assuming that metaphysical account of responsibility that offers the best fit with our favored theory of distributive justice
|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
Carl Knight (2013). Luck Egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass 8 (10):924-934.
Andreas Albertsen (2016). Drinking in the Last Chance Saloon: Luck Egalitarianism, Alcohol Consumption, and the Organ Transplant Waiting List. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 19 (2):325-338.
Similar books and articles
Ryan Long (2011). The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism. Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.
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.
Carl Knight & Roger Knight (2012). Equality and Information. Ethical Perspectives 19 (3):469-499.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2005). Hurley on Egalitarianism and the Luck-Neutralizing Aim. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (2):249-265.
Carl Knight (2012). Distributive Luck. South African Journal of Philosophy 31 (2):541-559.
Carl Knight (2005). In Defence of Luck Egalitarianism. Res Publica 11 (1):1-10.
Carl Knight (2009). Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh University Press.
Carl Knight (2013). Egalitarian Justice and Expected Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1061-1073.
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.
Matthew Lister (2012). Review of Carl Knight, Luck Egalitarianism. [REVIEW] Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):127-30.
Carl Knight (2011). Inequality, Avoidability, and Healthcare. Iyyun 60:72-88.
Carl Knight (2012). In Defence of Global Egalitarianism. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):107-116.
Robert Jubb (2011). On the Significance of the Basic Structure: A Priori Baseline Views and Luck Egalitarianism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (1):59-79.
Patrick Tomlin (2013). Choices Chance and Change: Luck Egalitarianism Over Time. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):393-407.
Patrick Tomlin (2012). Can I Be a Luck Egaliatarian and a Rawlsian? Ethical Perspectives 19 (3):371-397.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads75 ( #59,907 of 1,934,445 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #113,162 of 1,934,445 )
How can I increase my downloads?