Graduate studies at Western
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78 (1):131–150 (2004)
|Abstract||[Andrew Williams] It is difficult for prioritarians to explain the degree to which justice requires redress for misfortune in a way that avoids imposing unreasonably high costs on more advantaged individuals whilst also economising on intuitionist appeals to judgment. An appeal to hypothetical insurance may be able to solve the problems of cost and judgment more successfully, and can also be defended from critics who claim that resource egalitarianism is best understood to favour the ex post elimination of envy over individual endowments. /// [Michael Otsuka] Inequality is intrinsically bad when and because it is unfair. It follows that the ideal of equality is not necessarily realised by a distribution of resources which is envy-free prior to the resolution of risks against which people have an equal opportunity to insure. Even if the upshot of such an ex ante envyfree distribution is just, it is not necessarily fair|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson (2005). Equality and Priority. Utilitas 17 (3):299-309.
Michael Otsuka (2004). Equality, Ambition and Insurance. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78 (1):151–166.
Michael Otsuka (2002). Luck, Insurance, and Equality. Ethics 113 (1):40-54.
Nicole A. Vincent (2006). Equality, Responsibility and Talent Slavery. Imprints 9 (2):118-39.
Thomas Christiano & Will Braynen (2008). Inequality, Injustice and Levelling Down. Ratio 21 (4):392-420.
Peter Vallentyne (2002). Equality, Brute Luck, and Initial Opportunities. Ethics 112:529-557.
Peter Vallentyne (2003). Brute Luck Equality and Desert. In Sabrina Olsaretti (ed.), Desert and Justice.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #44,894 of 739,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?