Luck egalitarianism
Justice demands outcomes reflect choices, not unchosen luck.
Luck egalitarianism is a political philosophical view holding that justice requires variations in how well-off people are to be determined solely by their responsible choices, not by unchosen circumstances. It considers it bad for some to be worse off than others through no fault of their own.
Quick Facts
- Prominent early theorists
- Richard Arneson (equality of opportunity for welfare) and Gerald Cohen (equal access to advantage)
- Global luck egalitarian proponents
- Simon Caney and arguably Charles Beitz
- Notable critic
- Elizabeth S. Anderson
Facts from the source article.
Origins
John Rawls' theory of distributive justice foreshadowed luck egalitarianism, as he argued that a person's natural talents or circumstances are morally arbitrary, determined by a 'natural lottery' rather than one's own choices. This influenced later egalitarians, with Ronald Dworkin's equality of resources considered the first clearly luck egalitarian theory, though he rejected the label. Richard Arneson's equality of opportunity for welfare and Gerald Cohen's equal access to advantage were prominent early theories.
Basic principles
Luck egalitarianism holds that arbitrary factors such as accidents or illness should not influence equality, so people should be compensated for undeserved misfortune affecting their interests. It is a fundamental normative idea guiding thinking about justice, not an immediate policy prescription. Luck egalitarians disagree on how to measure well-being—whether by material wealth, psychological happiness, or other factors—and on assessing the value of resources.
Variant
Global luck egalitarianism applies the premise that it is bad for some to be worse off than others through no fault of their own across borders, associated with cosmopolitan moral theory. Proponents believe moral agents may have duties to mitigate the brute luck of distant others. Supporters include Simon Caney and arguably Charles Beitz; opponents, such as Robert Nozick, reject the premise either entirely or regarding inequalities above a minimum welfare level.
Criticism
One criticism notes that correlation does not imply causation, with alternative explanations possible in terms of structure, agency, luck, and choice. Elizabeth S. Anderson argues that a choice being made does not make it acceptable, citing a robber's offer 'Your money or your life' as an example, which some theorists like Thomas Hobbes have regarded as binding. She also claims luck egalitarianism expresses demeaning pity toward the disadvantaged, basing compensation on inferiority rather than equality, and excludes individuals from social conditions of freedom if their loss is judged their fault. Additionally, it involves the state making moralistic, intrusive judgments about choices, leading to counter-intuitive conclusions—such as denying claims from those who voluntarily enter risky jobs or live in disaster-prone areas.
More in Luck
Spotted an error? Know more?
Reader corrections go straight into our review queue. Suggest an edit · How this site is sourced