In Camilla Boisen & Matthew C. Murray (eds.), Distributive Justice Debates in Political and Social Thought. Abingdon, UK: pp. 26-38 (2016)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Luck egalitarianism is a family of egalitarian theories of distributive justice that give a special place to luck, choice, and responsibility. These theories can be understood as responding to perceived weaknesses in influential earlier theories of both the left – in particular Rawls’ liberal egalitarianism (1971) – and the right – Nozick’s libertarianism (1974) stands out here. Rawls put great emphasis on the continuity of his theory with the great social contract theories of modern political thought, particularly emphasising its Kantian character, while Nozick overtly develops his theory as an elaboration of John Locke’s account of property. By contrast, how luck egalitarianism is related to the history of political thought or philosophy more generally has been left unexplored by its proponents. Perhaps this is because they see luck egalitarianism, with its focus on individual choice and association with such contemporary concerns as equality of opportunity, as without significant predecessors in the canon. My purpose in this chapter is to make the tentative first steps towards identifying some historical antecedents of luck egalitarianism among the main works of Western political thought, in particular Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Locke.
|
Keywords | Luck egalitarianism History of political thought Aristotle Machiavelli Thomas Hobbes |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Buy the book |
Find it on Amazon.com
|
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Can Luck Egalitarianism Serve as a Basis for Distributive Justice? A Critique of Kok-Chor Tan’s Institutional Luck Egalitarianism.Akira Inoue - 2016 - Law and Philosophy 35 (4):391-414.
Luck Egalitarianism, Responsibility, and Political Liberalism.Ryan Long - 2016 - Dialogue 55 (1):107-130.
Equality of Opportunity and Other-Affecting Choice: Why Luck Egalitarianism Does Not Require Brute Luck Equality.Gideon Elford - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):139-149.
Democratic Egalitarianism Versus Luck Egalitarianism: What Is at Stake?Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2012 - Philosophical Topics 40 (1):117-134.
What Does Society Owe Me If I Am Responsible for Being Worse Off?Martin Marchman Andersen - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (3):271-286.
Luck Egalitarianism and Political Solidarity.Daniel Markovits - 2008 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (1):271-308.
Luck, Institutions, and Global Distributive Justice.Kok-Chor Tan - 2011 - European Journal of Political Theory 10 (3):394-421.
The Metaphysical Case for Luck Egalitarianism.Carl Knight - 2006 - Social Theory and Practice 32 (2):173-189.
Luck Egalitarianism, Permissible Inequalities, and Moral Hazard.Gerald Lang - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (3):317-338.
Can Luck Egalitarianism Be Really Saved By Value Pluralism?Eugen Huzum - 2011 - Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Philosophia 2.
How Interesting is the “Boring Problem” for Luck Egalitarianism?Gerald Lang - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (3):698-722.
Why Not Be a Desertist?: Three Arguments for Desert and Against Luck Egalitarianism.Huub Brouwer & Thomas Mulligan - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (9):2271-2288.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-07-14
Total views
44 ( #255,081 of 2,498,794 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,703 of 2,498,794 )
2021-07-14
Total views
44 ( #255,081 of 2,498,794 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,703 of 2,498,794 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads