References in work:

John O'dea (2007). The Value in Equal Opportunity: Reply to Kershnar.

7 found
Are we missing references?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add references for the above work:

Search for work by author name and title
Add directly by record ID

  1. Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted.R. J. Arneson - 1999 - Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.
    Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen’s interesting criticisms of the ideal of equality of opportunity for welfare provide a welcome occasion for rethinking the requirements of egalitarian distributive justice.1 In the essay he criticizes I had proposed that insofar as we think distributive justice requires equality of any sort, we should conceive of distributive equality as equal opportunity provision. Roughly put, my suggestion was that equality of opportunity for welfare obtains among a group of people when all would have the same expected welfare over (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  2.  30
    Can We Harm Furture People?Alan Carter - 2001 - Environmental Values 10 (4):429-454.
    It appears to have been established that it is not possible for us to harm distant future generations by failing to adopt long-range welfare policies which would conserve resources or limit pollution. By exploring a number of possible worlds, the present article shows, first, that the argument appears to be at least as telling against Aristotelian, rights-based and Rawlsian approaches as it seems to be against utilitarianism, but second, and most importantly, that it only holds if we fail to view (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  3.  33
    Why Equal Opportunity is Not a Valuable Goal.Stephen Kershnar - 2004 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):159–172.
  4.  62
    Equality of Opportunity, Old and New.Andrew Mason - 2001 - Ethics 111 (4):760-781.
  5.  62
    Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances.By Andrew Mason - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):368–388.
    It is often supposed that the point of equality of opportunity is to create a level playing-field. This is understood in different ways, however. A common proposal is what I call the neutralization view: that people's social circumstances should not differentially affect their life chances in any serious way. I raise problems with this view, before developing an alternative conception of equal opportunity which allows some variations in social circumstances to create differences in life prospects. The meritocratic conception which I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6. Is the Family to Be Abolished Then?Véronique Munoz-Dardé - 1999 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1):37–56.
    This article explores the justice of the family. From the perspective of justice, the family causes serious concerns, for it causes severe inequalities between individuals. Several justice theorists remark that by its mere existence the family impedes the access to equality of life chances. The paper examines whether this means that justice requires the abolition of the family. It asks whether everyone, and, in particular, the worst off, would prefer the family to a generalized well-run orphanage. This thought-experiment is used (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  7.  38
    Rights of Inequality: Rawlsian Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Status of the Family.Justin Schwartz - 2001 - Legal Theory 7 (1):83-117.
    Is the family subject to principles of justice? In "A Theory of Justice", John Rawls includes the (monogamous) family along with the market and the government as among the, "basic institutions of society", to which principles of justice apply. Justice, he famously insists, is primary in politics as truth is in science: the only excuse for tolerating injustice is that no lesser injustice is possible. The point of the present paper is that Rawls doesn't actually mean this. When it comes (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation