Perspectives on the Fairness of Lotteries

Res Publica 22 (2):209-224 (2016)
Authors
Jan-Willem Burgers
Australian National University
Abstract
When there are equally strong claimants for a scarce good, lotteries are often argued to be a fair method of allocation. This paper reproduces four of the views on the fairness of lotteries that have been presented in the literature: the distributive view; the preference view; the actual consent view; and the expressive view. It argues that these four views cannot offer plausible explanations for the fairness of lotteries. The distributive view is argued to be inadequate because, even though receiving expectations to a good is of value to the participants, this value cannot plausibly make a contribution to the satisfaction of a participant’s claim. Both the preference and actual consent views are argued to be implausible because they lead to accepting procedures as legitimate that fail to correspond with what a claim is. Finally, it is contended that the expressive view identifies a value that is relevant to respecting equal claimants, but that cannot plausibly be related to a procedure’s fairness. The paper concludes by maintaining that an equal treatment view can accept all the valid insights from these four views without needing to accept their untenable implications.
Keywords Fairness  Equal treatment  Claims  Lotteries
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11158-014-9265-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,425
External links

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

What is Egalitrianism?Samuel Scheffler - 2003 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (1):5-39.
The Expressive Function of Punishment.Joel Feinberg - 1965 - The Monist 49 (3):397-423.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Fairness Between Competing Claims.Ben Saunders - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):41-55.
The Equality of Lotteries.Ben Saunders - 2008 - Philosophy 83 (3):359-372.
Broome on Fairness and Lotteries.Hugh Lazenby - 2014 - Utilitas 26 (4):331-345.
Democracy-as-Fairness: Justice, Equal Chances and Lotteries.Ben Saunders - 2009 - Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 2 (1):154-156.
On Fairness and Claims.Patrick Tomlin - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (2):200-213.
The American State Lottery.Verna V. Gehring - 1999 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):223-238.
Survival Lotteries Reconsidered.Gerhard Øverland - 2007 - Bioethics 21 (7):355–363.
Fairness.Brad Hooker - 2005 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (4):329 - 352.
Family Fairness.Edna Ullmann-Margalit - 2006 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 73 (2):575-596.
Doing the Best One Can: A New Justification for the Use of Lotteries.Ittay Nissan-Rozen - 2012 - Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 5 (1):45-72.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-20

Total downloads
20 ( #294,423 of 2,267,163 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #372,894 of 2,267,163 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature