Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:20:11.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Luck Egalitarianism, Responsibility, and Political Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2016

RYAN LONG
RYAN LONG*
Affiliation:
Philadelphia University
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Luck egalitarians argue that distributive justice should be understood in terms of our capacity to be responsible for our choices. Both proponents and critics assume that the theory must rely on a comprehensive conception of responsibility. I respond to luck egalitarianism’s critics by developing a political conception of responsibility that remains agnostic on the metaphysics of free choice. I construct this political conception by developing a novel reading of John Rawls’ distinction between the political and the comprehensive. A surprising consequence is that many responsibility-based objections to luck egalitarianism turn out to be objections to Rawls’ political liberalism as well.

Selon l’égalitarisme de la fortune, la justice distributive est à comprendre en termes de notre capacité d’être responsables de nos choix. Tant les partisans que les opposants d’un tel égalitarisme présupposent qu’il doit être fondé sur une conception compréhensive de la responsabilité. Je réponds aux opposants en développant une conception politique de la responsabilité qui demeure agnostique devant la métaphysique du libre choix. Pour ce faire, je propose une relecture de la distinction rawlsienne entre le politique et le compréhensif. Une conséquence surprenante est que de nombreuses objections à l’égalitarisme de la fortune s’avèrent être des objections au libéralisme de Rawls.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 107 - 130
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blake, Michael and Risse, Mathias 2008 “Two Models of Equality and Responsibility,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38 June, no. 2: 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 1989 “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics 99: 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry 1969 “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Journal of Philosophy, 66, no. 23: 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry 1971 “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person,” Journal of Philosophy, 68: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshana, M.A.L. 1997 “Ascriptions of Responsibility,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, no. 1: 71–83.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 1975 “From Fairness to Goodness,” Philosophical Review, 84 October, no. 4: 536–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John 1996 Political Liberalism, (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Scanlon, T.M. 1998 What We Owe to Each Other, (Cambridge: The Belknap Press).Google Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel 2003 “What is Egalitarianism?,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31, no. 1: 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel 2005 “Choice, Circumstance, and the Value of Equality,” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 104 Feb., no. 4: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. 1963 “Free Will, Praise, and Blame,” Mind, 70: 291–306.Google Scholar
Smith, Angela 2005 “Responsibility and Attitudes: Activity and Passivity in Mental Life,” Ethics, 115, no 2: 236–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F. 1974 Freedom and Resentment, and Other Essays, (New York: Methuen).Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F. 1987 Skepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties, (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar