Defending Luck Egalitarianism

Nicholas Barry

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    43 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This article defends luck egalitarianism as an interpretation of the egalitarian ideal against two major criticisms levelled against it by Elizabeth Anderson ' that it is trapped in the distributive paradigm, and that it treats the victims of bad option luck too harshly to be considered an egalitarian theory. Against the first criticism, I argue that luck egalitarianism will condemn non-material inequalities and injustices if an appropriate conception of well-being is adopted. I demonstrate this by showing how the approach is sensitive to the five faces of oppression developed by Iris Young. Although the second criticism is more troubling, it does not defeat luck egalitarianism, either. I will show that few of the inequalities that arise in the real world result from option luck. Further, if cases do occur, rather than abandoning the theory, the best response is to combine luck egalitarianism with another egalitarian principle that will ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are satisfied. The paper concludes by defending the appeal of the distinction between option luck and brute luck, in light of the preceding discussion.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)89-107
    Number of pages19
    JournalJournal of Applied Philosophy
    Volume23
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2006

    Fingerprint

    Luck
    Luck Egalitarianism
    Criticism
    Paradigm
    Distributive
    Defeat
    Injustice
    Conception
    Real World
    Oppression
    Well-being
    Ideal

    Cite this

    Barry, Nicholas. / Defending Luck Egalitarianism. In: Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2006 ; Vol. 23, No. 1. pp. 89-107.
    @article{b7adb75143bb45aba86bef5fc9e7973b,
    title = "Defending Luck Egalitarianism",
    abstract = "This article defends luck egalitarianism as an interpretation of the egalitarian ideal against two major criticisms levelled against it by Elizabeth Anderson ' that it is trapped in the distributive paradigm, and that it treats the victims of bad option luck too harshly to be considered an egalitarian theory. Against the first criticism, I argue that luck egalitarianism will condemn non-material inequalities and injustices if an appropriate conception of well-being is adopted. I demonstrate this by showing how the approach is sensitive to the five faces of oppression developed by Iris Young. Although the second criticism is more troubling, it does not defeat luck egalitarianism, either. I will show that few of the inequalities that arise in the real world result from option luck. Further, if cases do occur, rather than abandoning the theory, the best response is to combine luck egalitarianism with another egalitarian principle that will ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are satisfied. The paper concludes by defending the appeal of the distinction between option luck and brute luck, in light of the preceding discussion.",
    keywords = "Choice, Elizabeth Anderson, Equality, Justice, Luck egalitarianism, Responsibility",
    author = "Nicholas Barry",
    note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Journal of Applied Philosophy. ISSNs: 0264-3758;",
    year = "2006",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00322.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "23",
    pages = "89--107",
    journal = "Journal of Applied Philosophy",
    issn = "0264-3758",
    publisher = "Carfax Publishing Ltd.",
    number = "1",

    }

    Defending Luck Egalitarianism. / Barry, Nicholas.

    In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2006, p. 89-107.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Defending Luck Egalitarianism

    AU - Barry, Nicholas

    N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Journal of Applied Philosophy. ISSNs: 0264-3758;

    PY - 2006

    Y1 - 2006

    N2 - This article defends luck egalitarianism as an interpretation of the egalitarian ideal against two major criticisms levelled against it by Elizabeth Anderson ' that it is trapped in the distributive paradigm, and that it treats the victims of bad option luck too harshly to be considered an egalitarian theory. Against the first criticism, I argue that luck egalitarianism will condemn non-material inequalities and injustices if an appropriate conception of well-being is adopted. I demonstrate this by showing how the approach is sensitive to the five faces of oppression developed by Iris Young. Although the second criticism is more troubling, it does not defeat luck egalitarianism, either. I will show that few of the inequalities that arise in the real world result from option luck. Further, if cases do occur, rather than abandoning the theory, the best response is to combine luck egalitarianism with another egalitarian principle that will ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are satisfied. The paper concludes by defending the appeal of the distinction between option luck and brute luck, in light of the preceding discussion.

    AB - This article defends luck egalitarianism as an interpretation of the egalitarian ideal against two major criticisms levelled against it by Elizabeth Anderson ' that it is trapped in the distributive paradigm, and that it treats the victims of bad option luck too harshly to be considered an egalitarian theory. Against the first criticism, I argue that luck egalitarianism will condemn non-material inequalities and injustices if an appropriate conception of well-being is adopted. I demonstrate this by showing how the approach is sensitive to the five faces of oppression developed by Iris Young. Although the second criticism is more troubling, it does not defeat luck egalitarianism, either. I will show that few of the inequalities that arise in the real world result from option luck. Further, if cases do occur, rather than abandoning the theory, the best response is to combine luck egalitarianism with another egalitarian principle that will ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are satisfied. The paper concludes by defending the appeal of the distinction between option luck and brute luck, in light of the preceding discussion.

    KW - Choice

    KW - Elizabeth Anderson

    KW - Equality

    KW - Justice

    KW - Luck egalitarianism

    KW - Responsibility

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00322.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00322.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 23

    SP - 89

    EP - 107

    JO - Journal of Applied Philosophy

    JF - Journal of Applied Philosophy

    SN - 0264-3758

    IS - 1

    ER -