Switch to: References

Citations of:

In defence of luck egalitarianism

Res Publica 11 (1):1-10 (2005)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Principle of Responsibility for Illness and its Application in the Allocation of Health Care: A Critical Analysis.Eugen Huzum - 2008 - In Bogdan Olaru (ed.), Autonomy, Responsibility, and Health Care. Critical Essays. Bucharest: Zeta Books. pp. 191-220.
    In this paper I analyze a view that is increasingly spreading among philosophers and even physicians. Many of them believe that it is right to apply the principle of responsibility for illness in the allocation of health care. I attempt to show that this idea is unacceptable.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Abandoning the Abandonment Objection: Luck Egalitarian Arguments for Public Insurance.Carl Knight - 2015 - Res Publica 21 (2):119-135.
    Critics of luck egalitarianism have claimed that, far from providing a justification for the public insurance functions of a welfare state as its proponents claim, the view objectionably abandons those who are deemed responsible for their dire straits. This article considers seven arguments that can be made in response to this ‘abandonment objection’. Four of these arguments are found wanting, with a recurrent problem being their reliance on a dubious sufficientarian or quasi-sufficientarian commitment to provide a threshold of goods unconditionally. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Tough Luck and Tough Choices: Applying Luck Egalitarianism to Oral Health.Andreas Albertsen - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (3):342-362.
    Luck egalitarianism is often taken to task for its alleged harsh implications. For example, it may seem to imply a policy of nonassistance toward uninsured reckless drivers who suffer injuries. Luck egalitarians respond to such objections partly by pointing to a number of factors pertaining to the cases being debated, which suggests that their stance is less inattentive to the plight of the victims than it might seem at first. However, the strategy leaves some cases in which the attribution of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Harshness Objection: Is Luck Egalitarianism Too Harsh on the Victims of Option Luck?Kristin Voigt - 2007 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):389-407.
    According to luck egalitarianism, inequalities are justified if and only if they arise from choices for which it is reasonable to hold agents responsible. This position has been criticised for its purported harshness in responding to the plight of individuals who, through their own choices, end up destitute. This paper aims to assess the Harshness Objection. I put forward a version of the objection that has been qualified to take into account some of the more subtle elements of the luck (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Defending Luck Egalitarianism.Nicholas Barry - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):89–107.
  • From Contracts to Capabilities and Back Again.Tony Fitzpatrick - 2008 - Res Publica 14 (2):83-100.
    It has been common for researchers and commentators within the discipline of Social and Public Policy to evoke Rawlsian theories of justice. Yet some now argue that the contractualist tradition cannot adequately incorporate, or account for, relations of care, respect and interdependency. Though contractualism has its flaws this article proposes that we should not reject it. Through a critique of one of its most esteemed critics, Martha Nussbaum, it proposes that contractualism can be defended against the capabilities approach she prefers. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation.Xavier Landes & Pierre-Yves Néron - 2015 - Res Publica 21 (2):137-154.
    Public insurance is commonly assimilated with redistributive tools mobilized by the welfare state in the pursuit of an egalitarian ideal. This view contains some truth, since the result of insurance, at a given moment, is the redistribution of resources from the lucky to unlucky. However, Joseph Heath considers that the principle of efficiency provides a better normative explanation and justification of public insurance than the egalitarian account. According to this view, the fact that the state is involved in the provision (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark