It is a commonly held position in the literature on distributive justice that choices individuals make from an equalized background may lead to inequalities of outcome. This raises the question of how to assign consequences to particular types of behaviour. Theories of justice based on the concept of moral responsibility offer considerable guidance as to how society should be structured, but they rarely address the question of what the consequences of making a particular choice should be. To fill this lacuna, (...) these theories must rely on a theory of consequences. I argue that the most plausible theories of consequences are substantive rather than procedural in nature. Such theories of consequences are inherently based on the concept of desert. By evaluating individuals' choices society may determine the appropriate consequences of choices for which they are responsible. (shrink)

If one wishes to give individuals what they deserve, one must find some way of appraising those characteristics that render them deserving. In modern democratic societies, it seems attractive to base this appraisal on an aggregation of the valuations individuals hold of the desert bases under consideration. Some have argued that the market can provide such an appraisal. However, I argue that the market does not provide a satisfactory democratic appraisal that is relevant for desert, as it allows for the (...) existence of net consumer surplus. Nevertheless, I submit that a procedure that does not leave any net consumer surplus would succeed where the market fails. Taking the average valuation of the individuals in society for a given desert base would meet this requirement. Hence, I claim that such a procedure can provide the satisfactory democratic appraisal that the market cannot, and can be used to give individuals what they deserve. (shrink)

With the rapid advance of bio-genetic technology, it will soon be possible for parents to design children who are born with certain genetic traits. This raises the question whether parents should be allowed to use this technology to engineer their children as they please. In this context it is often thought and argued that liberalism, which has a reputation for being permissive of all kinds of practices, grants parents the right to do so. However, I will argue that, on an (...) understanding of liberalism that is identical to the one used by the defenders of genetic design, liberals should wary of such practices. Liberalism, in its most general form, requires that any time individuals exercise power over others they justify it without relying on any particular conception of what a good life is. When we design children to have certain traits that are only useful for realising some conceptions of the good life, we are implicitly endorsing those conceptions. Hence this practice cannot be justified in neutral terms, and liberals should be sceptical of it. Only when we engineer our children to have traits that are useful for all conceptions of the good life can liberals allow the use of this new technology. Indeed, liberalism holds that this is morally required. (shrink)

It is highly desirable for an allocation of goods to be efficient. However, one might also deem it important that an allocation gives individuals what they deserve. This paper investigates whether it is possible for an allocation to be both efficient and give people what they deserve. It will first of all consider comparative desert, and conclude that it is possible to satisfy both desiderata. It will then consider absolute desert by integrating Shelly Kagan’s work on desert and economic theory. (...) The conclusion will be that there are potential conflicts between absolute desert and efficiency. The paper will then examine how to select the best compromise between the two values, considering several different conceptions of absolute desert. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: When considering normative concepts, such as distributive justice, one must consider both the question how concepts can have normative force and which particular conceptions of these concepts have this normative force. In this article I consider the view that the human capacity for autonomy accounts for normativity, and argue that adopting this view commits one to a responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. This conclusion puts me directly at odds with the work of John Rawls, who derives his responsibility-insensitive difference (...) principle from a similar account of autonomy. However, I argue that such an argument would be based on a mischaracterisation of what is significant about the human capacity for autonomy. RÉSUMÉ : Pour envisager des concepts normatifs, tels que la justice distributive, il faut à la fois considérer la question de savoir comment les concepts peuvent avoir une force normative et se demander aussi quelles conceptions de ces concepts en sont dotés. Cet article considère que la capacité propre à l’humain d’être autonome rend compte de la normativité nous engage à adopter une théorie de justice distributive qui est sensible à la responsabilité. Cette conclusion entre directement en conflit les théories de Rawls, qui tire d’une explication similaire sur l’autonomie son principe de responsabilité qui ne tient pas compte de la différence. Un tel argument se fonde sur une mauvaise caractérisation de ce qui est important dans la capacité propre à l’humain d’être autonome. (shrink)