Economic Inequalities and Choice: A Reassessment of Ronald Dworkin's Theory of Distributive Justice

Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004)

Abstract
This dissertation proposes a new reading and appraisal of an important theory of distributive justice, Ronald Dworkin's "Equality of Resources" . ER is traditional in holding that choices made by rational, ignorant and purely self-interested beings are relevant to distributive justice. ER is novel both in its use of such choices and in incorporating the idea that one's success is largely one's own responsibility into liberal egalitarianism. ;I argue that the tax-and-redistribution scheme Dworkin proposes to make actual distributions just is flawed because he misconceives the role of choice. He errs in thinking that the conditions for person X to receive compensation depend on the choices of such beings, although he is right, I argue, insofar as the relevant choices include X's hypothetical choices. Dworkin errs in that ER implies that whether X meets these conditions can depend on X's irrational choices, although he is right that whether X meets these conditions can depend on some of X's actual choices. ER becomes flawed, I argue, when Dworkin derives a tax-and-redistribution scheme designed to achieve distributive justice in reality from the auction he proposes for making hypothetical distributions just. ;I then consider whether ER withstands stock objections and how plausible it is relative to rival Theories. Dworkin argues that ER, but not Rawls' Theory, meets the following condition for a Theory to be plausible: the distributions a Theory deems just must be sensitive to choices. I argue that Dworkin's argument is no longer plausible once we realize to which choice sensitivity principle he is himself committed. However, I argue, Seana Shiffrin's objection to ER fails because she misunderstands the role of choice in ER, although she is right insofar as there is a related, though superficial, objection. I also argue that ER is inconsistent and show how to resolve this inconsistency without leaving ER vulnerable to attack by G. A. Cohen's rival Theory. I trace ER's inconsistency and the failure of Dworkin's argument against Rawls' Theory to Dworkin's method of justification
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 53,742
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

Liberalism, Justice and Markets.Colin Murray Macleod - 1993 - Dissertation, Cornell University
Choice and Luck in Recent Egalitarian Thought.Timothy Hinton - 2002 - Philosophical Papers 31 (2):145-167.
How Gifts and Gambles Preserve Justice.Andrew Williams - 2013 - Economics and Philosophy 29 (1):65-85.
Choices, Consequences and Desert.Teun J. Dekker - 2009 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 52 (2):109 – 126.
The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism.Ryan Long - 2011 - Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-04

Total views
1 ( #1,434,776 of 2,349,846 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #511,368 of 2,349,846 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes