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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hyams, Keith. 2017. “When Do Risky Choices Justify Inequality?”. 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-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license to works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for any purpose except commercial. 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-NC:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.

Creative Commons License

Author Biography

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

Keith Hyams, Associate ProfessorUniversity of WarwickDepartment of Politics and International StudiesSocial Sciences Building, The University of WarwickCoventry, CV4 7ALUnited Kingdom

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

Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

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

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

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

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

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

Dworkin R. (2000), Sovereign Virtue, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
View in Google Scholar

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

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

Olsaretti S. (2004), Liberty, Desert and the Market, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

White S. (2003), The Civil Minimum, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar