Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice

by Carl Knight

How should we decide which inequalities between people are justified, and which are unjustified?One answer is that such inequalities are only justified where there is a corresponding variation in responsible action or choice on the part of the persons concerned. This view, which has become known as 'luck egalitarianism', has come to occupy a central place in recent debates about distributive justice. This book is the first full length treatment of this significant development in contemporary political philosophy.Each of its three parts addresses a key question concerning the theory. Which version of luck egalitarian comes closest to realizing luck egalitarian objectives? Does luck egalitarianism succeed as a view of egalitarian justice? And is it sound as an account of distributive justice in general?The book provides a distinctive answer to each of these questions, along the way engaging with the leading theorists identified in the literature as luck egalitarians, such as Richard Arneson, G. A. Cohen, and Ronald Dworkin, as well as the most influential critics, including Elizabeth Anderson, Marc Fleurbaey, Susan Hurley, Samuel Scheffler, and Jonathan Wolff.Key Features*Presents a critical survey of already classic debates about responsibility, equality and justice*Provides a sustained engagement with luck egalitarianism's critics*Stakes a distinctive position on the key questions regarding luck egalitarianism

256 pages, Hardcover

First published July 10, 2009

Reviews

[David]

I'm not going to finish this book (at least at this time.) For my current priorities, it's too narrowly focused on one area of egalitarian policy - discussed in a strictly philosophical manner (no studies of real social behavior which might constrain practical policy paths.) The first section was interesting as it discussed views on a policy concept which pushed me to make sense of why it felt wrong to me. But at the point I stopped reading, it was discussing the possible meanings of a term used in defining the policy previously discussed.

The concept of "luck egalitarianism" is that people can receive disadvantages as a result of their own choices / actions, but they shouldn't have the burden of disadvantages as a result of factors beyond their control. A simple example I would use is: A man shouldn't be left homeless because lightning struck his house rather than someoen else's. However, I see that there are various ways it can be complicated determining how much of a person's actions he is fully, partly or not reasonably responsible.

To give a clearer idea of the book: The policy concept discussed in the first section is that people should get what they need in order not to envy others for what others have. In particular, if some people have expensive tastes (for reasons beyond their control), does that mean "luck egalitarianism" requires that they be given a lavish standard of living so they don't envy others?