Equality and Luck (Rawls, Dworkin, Cohen, Anderson)

Question 1

Define: Brute Luck (BL) and Option Luck (OL)

Answer 1

BL: Luck not arising from deliberate gamble.
OL: Luck arising from deliberate and calculated gambles. (i.e. studying 2/5 topics for the exam and see what happens)

Question 2

Define: Luck Egalitarianism (LE)

Answer 2

Calls for removal of luck and for success to only reflect choices. Inequality is justified if it is the result of fair competition and if wealth is earned. Focuses on the distinction between choice and luck.

ISSUE: Even if you remove luck, natural talent, which arises by luck, will still play a big role in determining success. (Not an issue for me as I have no natural talent).

Question 3

Explain RAWLS’ (LE) Arguments on Achieving Equality

Answer 3

RAWLS: Political liberalism - Social and economic arrangements must 1) allow equality of opportunity for office and positions and 2) be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Those with natural talents should use the talent to help the disadvantaged.

Question 4

Explain DWORKIN’s (LE) Arguments on Achieving Equality

Answer 4

DWORKIN: Establish equality of resources first, then neutralise natural disabilities (arising from BL) via compensation or insurance to achieve equality of opportunity.

Insurance turns BL to OL (You had a chance to buy insurance but you chose not to so if you suffer that’s fair).

Implementation: Welfare payments for those who are disabled.

NOTE: $ is only owed to disadvantages traceable to BL but not to disadvantages traceable to tastes and preferences.

Question 5

Issues with DWORKIN’S Arguments

Answer 5

1. Hard to separate BL from choice: How to determine portion of income attributable to natural talent (BL) and working hard?
2. Natural talent (BL) itself changes overtime and is also a matter of luck: If you are talented at smelting iron in 2018 so what?

Question 6

COHEN’s Critique of Dworkin

Answer 6

Why isn’t $ available to those who have genuinely-held, involuntary and expensive tastes (wtf….) and only those with disabilities as those people suffer from BL as well.

If goal is for everyone to be happy and those with expensive tastes arising from BL should not be treated differently.

Question 7

Explain COHEN’s Arguments

Answer 7

COHEN: $ is owed for ANY disadvantage beyond our control (includes both disabilities and tastes) but not for disadvantages within our control.

He focuses on equal access to advantage.

Question 8

Define: Democratic Egalitarianism (DE)

Answer 8

Equality is about ending socially imposed oppression and upholding the quality of human relationships. Justice is not about equalising of talents or luck.

Social injustice is concerned with oppressive relationships.

Question 9

ANDERSON’s Critique of LE

Answer 9

1. Equalising distribution of goods and resources is only part of the process to achieve a society where people stand as equal.
2. Distribution of $ in LE is regulated by pity and envy as it blames victims of OL and victimises victims of BL.
3. Disregard misfortunes produced by OL; $ for only bad BL but not bad OL too narrow.
4. Establish choices or tastes is a very intrusive exercise.

Question 10

Criticisms of ANDERSON

Answer 10

1. What if equality of human relationships was realised at the cost of people living profoundly unhappy lives?
2. LE and DE are not mutually exclusive?
3. Isn’t social standing just another ‘good’ which deserves to be distributed equally?
4. Do I still deserve resource if I irresponsibly fall below the threshold over and over again?