What Is the Point of the Harshness Objection?

Utilitas 32 (4):427-443 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


According to luck egalitarianism, it is unjust if some are worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. The most common criticism of luck egalitarianism is the ‘harshness objection’, which states that luck egalitarianism allows for too harsh consequences, as it fails to provide justification for why those responsible for their bad fate can be entitled to society's assistance. It has largely gone unnoticed that the harshness objection is open to a number of very different interpretations. We present four different interpretations of the harshness objection in which the problem pertains to counterintuitive implications, badness of outcome, disproportionality, or inconsistency, respectively. We analyse and discuss appropriate luck egalitarian replies. Disentangling these different versions clarifies what is at the heart of this dispute and reveals the point of the harshness objection. We conclude that only the inconsistency version involves a durable problem for luck egalitarianism.

Similar books and articles

Can Luck Egalitarianism Be Really Saved By Value Pluralism?Eugen Huzum - 2011 - Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Philosophia 2.
On the Significance of the Basic Structure: A Priori Baseline Views and Luck Egalitarianism.Robert Jubb - 2011 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (1):59-79.
What do you mean I should take responsibility for my own ill health.Nicole A. Vincent - 2009 - Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 1 (1):39-51.
When bad things happen to good people.Jens Damgaard Thaysen & Andreas Albertsen - 2017 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 16 (1):93-112.


Added to PP

217 (#93,701)

6 months
160 (#20,817)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Lasse B. N. B.N. Nielsen
Palacky University
Andreas Albertsen
Aarhus University

References found in this work

Rescuing Justice and Equality.G. A. Cohen (ed.) - 2008 - Harvard University Press.
What is the point of equality.Elizabeth Anderson - 1999 - Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly.Norman Daniels - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
Equality and equal opportunity for welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.

View all 39 references / Add more references