David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 1 (1):39-51 (2009)
Luck egalitarians think that considerations of responsibility can excuse departures from strict equality. However critics argue that allowing responsibility to play this role has objectionably harsh consequences. Luck egalitarians usually respond either by explaining why that harshness is not excessive, or by identifying allegedly legitimate exclusions from the default responsibility-tracking rule to tone down that harshness. And in response, critics respectively deny that this harshness is not excessive, or they argue that those exclusions would be ineffective or lacking in justification. Rather than taking sides, after criticizing both positions I also argue that this way of carrying on the debate – i.e. as a debate about whether the harsh demands of responsibility outweigh other considerations, and about whether exclusions to responsibility-tracking would be effective and/or justified – is deeply problematic. On my account, the demands of responsibility do not – in fact, they can not – conflict with the demands of other normative considerations, because responsibility only provides a formal structure within which those other considerations determine how people may be treated, but it does not generate its own practical demands.
|Keywords||responsibility distributive justice luck egalitarianism public health policy alcoholism smoking|
|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
Nicole A. Vincent (2010). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Carlo Petrini & Michele Farisco (2012). Medical Responsibility and Clinical Guidelines: A Few Remarks From Two Italian Juridical Cases. Medicine Studies 3 (3):157-169.
Similar books and articles
H. De Schutter & L. Ypi (2012). Language and Luck. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (4):357-381.
Carl Knight (2010). Justice and the Grey Box of Responsibility. Theoria 57 (124):86-112.
Zofia Stemplowska (2008). Holding People Responsible for What They Do Not Control. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):355-377.
Ishtiyaque H. Haji (2007). Modest Libertarianism, Luck, and Control. Polish Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):77-89.
Carl Knight (2009). Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice. Edinburgh University Press.
Peter Vallentyne (2006). Hurley on Justice and Responsibility. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2):433 - 438.
Ryan Long (2011). The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism. Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.
Carl Knight (2006). The Metaphysical Case for Luck Egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189.
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
Carl Knight (2011). Responsibility, Desert, and Justice. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press
Added to index2009-12-22
Total downloads243 ( #5,634 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)116 ( #7,905 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?