Law and Philosophy 35 (4):391-414 (2016)

Abstract
This paper examines whether Kok-Chor Tan’s institutional luck egalitarianism is successful as a pluralist luck egalitarian theory of justice and morality. In recent years, pluralist luck egalitarianism has become a salient theory of justice. Tan’s pluralist proposal for institutional luck egalitarianism is attractive because it seems to refute the metaphysical and practical challenges against luck egalitarianism. This paper demonstrates that, although Tan’s institutional luck egalitarianism is indeed a most sophisticated systematic pluralist theory of justice and morality, his argument fails because the application of luck egalitarianism to the domain of distributive justice and to the basic institutions of society is not justified from the luck egalitarian point of view. This paper concludes that Tan’s institutional luck egalitarianism does not succeed in demonstrating that his theory is an outstanding achievement of luck egalitarianism.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10982-016-9261-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,466
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Against Institutional Luck Egalitarianism.Rekha Nath - 2014 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 8 (1):1-19.
Luck, Institutions, and Global Distributive Justice.Kok-Chor Tan - 2011 - European Journal of Political Theory 10 (3):394-421.
The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism.Ryan Long - 2011 - Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.
Luck Egalitarianism.Carl Knight - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (10):924-934.
Hurley on Egalitarianism and the Luck-Neutralizing Aim.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2005 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (2):249-265.
The Metaphysical Case for Luck Egalitarianism.Carl Knight - 2006 - Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189.
Luck Egalitarianism.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2015 - Bloomsbury Academic.
Can Luck Egalitarianism Be Really Saved By Value Pluralism?Eugen Huzum - 2011 - Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Philosophia 2.
How Interesting is the “Boring Problem” for Luck Egalitarianism?Gerald Lang - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (3):698-722.
In Defence of Luck Egalitarianism.Carl Knight - 2005 - Res Publica 11 (1):1-10.
Luck Egalitarianism, Permissible Inequalities, and Moral Hazard.Gerald Lang - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (3):317-338.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-07-05

Total views
27 ( #376,161 of 2,374,914 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #206,367 of 2,374,914 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes