When do Risky Choices Justify Inequality?

Article Sidebar

PDF Full text
Published: Oct 4, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1101
Keywords:
luck egalitarianism, equality, risk, choice, disadvantage, inequality, chance, uncertainty

Main Article Content

Keith Hyams
University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies

Abstract

Luck egalitarianism is the view that inequalities are justified when and only when a particular condition is met. Recent years have seen considerable debate about the exact nature of the risky choices thought by luck egalitarians to justify inequality. All positions in the debate emphasise the importance of choice, but they differ in the precise details of how choice features in the inequality-justifying condition. The present paper argues for a novel view about the conditions under which risky choices should justify choice in a manner that uncovers ambiguity and flaws in existing positions. It rejects existing accounts and develops a new hypothetical choice based account of inequality-justifying risk.

Article Details

How to Cite
“When Do Risky Choices Justify Inequality?”. 2017. Diametros, no. 53 (October): 60-74. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1101.
Issue
No. 53 (2017)
Section
Ethics and Uncertainty

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Author Biography

Keith Hyams, University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies

Keith Hyams, Associate Professor
University of Warwick
Department of Politics and International Studies
Social Sciences Building, The University of Warwick
Coventry, CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

E-mail: K.D.Hyams@warwick.ac.uk

How to Cite

“When Do Risky Choices Justify Inequality?”. 2017. Diametros, no. 53 (October): 60-74. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1101.
Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Anderson E. (1999), “What Is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109 (1): 287–337.

Arneson R. (1989), “Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare,” Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 77–93.

Arneson R. (2007), “Does Social Justice Matter? Brian Barry’s Applied Political Philosophy,” Ethics 117 (3): 391–412.

Cohen G.A. (1989), “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics 99 (4): 906–944.

Cohen G.A. (2008), Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Dworkin R. (2000), Sovereign Virtue, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Eyal N. (2007), “Egalitarian Justice and Innocent Choice,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2 (1): 1–18.

Lippert-Rasmussen K. (2001), “Egalitarianism, Option Luck, and Responsibility,” Ethics 111 (3): 548–579.

Olsaretti S. (2004), Liberty, Desert and the Market, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Otsuka M. (2002), “Luck, Insurance and Equality,” Ethics 113 (1): 40–54.

Otsuka M. (2004), “Equality, Ambition, and Insurance,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78 (1): 151–166.

Roemer J.E. (1998), Equality of Opportunity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Vallentyne P. (2002), “Brute Luck, Option Luck, and Equality of Initial Opportunities,” Ethics 112 (3): 529–557.

White S. (2003), The Civil Minimum, Oxford University Press, Oxford.