Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Financial Risks and Social Justice – Three Perspectives.Teppo Eskelinen - 2016 - Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 63 (148):1-16.
    This article focuses in the allocation of financial risks from the viewpoint of social justice. In contemporary society, finance and the related risk allocation patterns have become highly important in determining the social positions of individuals. Yet it is somewhat unclear how ‘financial risks’ should be understood in normative theory and to what extent their allocation is a specific problem of justice. This article consists of a definition of this category and a typology of three different and distinctive perspectives to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Egalitarian Justice and Expected Value.Carl Knight - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1061-1073.
    According to all-luck egalitarianism, the differential distributive effects of both brute luck, which defines the outcome of risks which are not deliberately taken, and option luck, which defines the outcome of deliberate gambles, are unjust. Exactly how to correct the effects of option luck is, however, a complex issue. This article argues that (a) option luck should be neutralized not just by correcting luck among gamblers, but among the community as a whole, because it would be unfair for gamblers as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Distributive Luck.Carl Knight - 2012 - South African Journal of Philosophy 31 (2):541-559.
    This article explores the Rawlsian goal of ensuring that distributions are not influenced by the morally arbitrary. It does so by bringing discussions of distributive justice into contact with the debate over moral luck initiated by Williams and Nagel. Rawls’ own justice as fairness appears to be incompatible with the arbitrariness commitment, as it creates some equalities arbitrarily. A major rival, Dworkin’s version of brute luck egalitarianism, aims to be continuous with ordinary ethics, and so is (a) sensitive to non-philosophical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Do We Have Relational Reasons to Care About Intergenerational Equality?Caleb Althorpe & Elizabeth Finneron-Burns - manuscript
    Relational egalitarians sometimes argue that a degree of distributive equality is necessary for social equality to obtain among members of society. In this paper, we consider how such arguments fare when extended to the intergenerational case. In particular, we examine whether relational reasons for distributive equality apply between non-overlapping generations. We claim that they do not. We begin by arguing that the most common reasons relational egalitarians offer in favour of distributive equality between contemporaries do not give us reasons to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Dilemma for Luck Egalitarians.Ofer Malcai & Re’em Segev - forthcoming - Journal of Value Inquiry:1-21.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Relational Egalitarianism and Informal Social Interaction.Dan Threet - 2019 - Dissertation, Georgetown University
    This dissertation identifies and responds to a problem for liberal relational egalitarians. There is a prima facie worry about the compatibility of liberalism and relational egalitarianism, concerning the requirements of equality in informal social life. Liberalism at least involves a commitment to leaving individuals substantial discretion to pursue their own conceptions of the good. Relational equality is best understood as a kind of deliberative practice about social institutions and practices. Patterns of otherwise innocuous social choices (e.g., where to live, whom (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Justice, Thresholds, and the Three Claims of Sufficientarianism.Dick Timmer - 2022 - Journal of Political Philosophy 30 (3):298-323.
    In this article, I propose a novel characterization of sufficientarianism. I argue that sufficientarianism combines three claims: a priority claim that we have non-instrumental reasons to prioritize benefits in certain ranges over benefits in other ranges; a continuum claim that at least two of those ranges are on one continuum; and a deficiency claim that the lower a range on a continuum, the more priority benefits in that range have. This characterization of sufficientarianism sheds new light on two long-standing philosophical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Social justice and financial capitalism. Some notions on risks, hierarchies and value.Teppo Eskelinen - 2017 - Studies in Social and Political Thought 1 (27):57-75.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Justice and Public Health.Govind Persad - 2019 - In Anna C. Mastroianni, Jeffrey P. Kahn & Nancy E. Kass (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. Oup Usa. pp. ch. 4.
    This chapter discusses how justice applies to public health. It begins by outlining three different metrics employed in discussions of justice: resources, capabilities, and welfare. It then discusses different accounts of justice in distribution, reviewing utilitarianism, egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism, as well as desert-based theories, and applies these distributive approaches to public health examples. Next, it examines the interplay between distributive justice and individual rights, such as religious rights, property rights, and rights against discrimination, by discussing examples such as mandatory (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Insurance and Equality Revisited.L. Chad Horne - 2018 - Public Affairs Quarterly 32 (3):205-225.
    Theorists of the welfare state increasingly recognize that social insurance programs are not well-justified by distributive egalitarianism—meaning concern for equality considered as a pattern in the distribution of some good. However, recent work by several relational egalitarian theorists suggests that these programs may be justified on relational egalitarian grounds. Relational egalitarians hold that the proper object of egalitarian concern is the way that citizens relate to one another. In this paper, I review the problems facing a distributive egalitarian justification for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Egalitarianismul.Eugen Huzum - 2013 - In Teorii si ideologii politice. Iasi: Institutul European. pp. 49-88.
    În acest capitol îmi revine sarcina de a prezenta unul dintre cele mai influente și mai dinamice curente din filosofia politică actuală. Este vorba, desigur, despre curentul care dă titlul acestui capitol: egalitarianismul.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Teorii si ideologii politice.Eugen Huzum (ed.) - 2013 - Iasi: Institutul European.
    Nu cu foarte mult timp în urmă, grupul de teorie socială şi politică din cadrul proiectului POSDRU 89/1.5/S/56815 „Societatea bazată pe cunoaştere-cercetări, dezbateri, perspective”, a publicat, tot la editura Institutul European, lucrarea Concepte şi teorii social-politice. Volumul de faţă reprezintă un nou pas al grupului nostru de lucru în realizarea proiectului inaugurat prin publicarea acelei lucrări. Este vorba, reamintesc, despre proiectul elaborării unor volume care să-i ajute pe cei interesaţi în iniţierea (lor sau a altora) în teoria (şi în special (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)The Fundamental Disagreement between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarians.Elizabeth Anderson - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (S1):1-23.
    Much contemporary egalitarian theorizing is broadly divided between luck egalitarians, such as G. A. Cohen, Richard Arneson, and John Roemer, and relational egalitarians, such as John Rawls, Samuel Scheffler, Josh Cohen, and me. The two camps disagree about how to conceive of equality: as an equal distribution of non-relational goods among individuals, or as a kind of social relation between persons - an equality of authority, status, or standing.This disagreement generates a second, about when unequal distributions of non-relational goods are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   61 citations  
  • Fair climate policy in an unequal world: Characterising responsibilities and designing institutions for mitigation and international finance.Jonathan Pickering - 2013 - Dissertation, Australian National University
    The urgent need to address climate change poses a range of complex moral and practical concerns, not least because rising to the challenge will require cooperation among countries that differ greatly in their wealth, the extent of their contributions to the problem, and their vulnerability to environmental and economic shocks. This thesis by publication in the field of climate ethics aims to characterise a range of national responsibilities associated with acting on climate change (Part I), and to identify proposals for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Equality via mobility: Why socioeconomic mobility matters for relational equality, distributive equality, and equality of opportunity.Govind Persad - 2015 - Social Philosophy and Policy 31 (2):158-179.
    This essay examines the connection between socioeconomic mobility and equality, and argues for two conclusions: (a) Socioeconomic mobility is conceptually distinct from three common species of equality: (1) equality of opportunity, (2) equality of outcome, and (3) relational equality. -/- (b) However, socioeconomic mobility is connected — in different ways — to each species of equality, and, if we value one or more of these species of equality, these connections endow mobility with derivative normative significance.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Luck, Risk and the Market.Hugh Lazenby - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4):667-680.
    This paper explores how luck egalitarianism fares in capturing our intuitions about the fairness of market-generated outcomes. Critics of luck egalitarianism have argued that it places no restrictions on what outcomes are acceptable, at least when all agents are equally situated before entering the market, and that this gives us a reason to reject it as an account of fairness. I will argue that luck egalitarianism does make specific judgements about which market-generated outcomes are compatible with maintaining a fair distribution. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?Kristin Voigt - 2022 - Public Health Ethics 15 (1):51-63.
    In several countries, governments have implemented so-called ‘COVID passport’ schemes, which restrict access to venues such as bars or sports events to those who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and/or exempt vaccinated individuals from public health measures such as curfews or quarantine requirements. These schemes have been the subject of a heated debate. Concerns about inequality have played an important role in the opposition to such schemes. This article highlights that determining how COVID passports affect equality requires a much more nuanced (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Equality of Resources and Non-domination: Can the Two be Compatible?Sotiria Skarveli - 2020 - Res Publica 27 (1):3-24.
    Social egalitarians hold that one fundamental requirement of the ideal of social equality is that people should stand in relations of non-domination to one another. In the light of this, they reject luck egalitarian principles of justice as incompatible with a society of equals, because the former violate the non-domination requirement. I call this the domination objection. In this paper I examine its force against Dworkinian resource egalitarianism. There are two reasons why equality of resources might be thought to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Egalitarianism and Executive Compensation: A Relational Argument.Pierre-Yves Néron - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 132 (1):171-184.
    What, if anything, is wrong with high executive compensation? Is the common “lay reaction” of indignation and moral outrage justified? In this paper, my main goal is to articulate in a more systematic and philosophical manner the egalitarian responses to these questions. In order to do so, I suggest that we take some insights from recent debates on two versions of egalitarianism: a distributive one, according to which no one should be worse off than others because of unfair distributions of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Thresholds and Limits in Theories of Distributive Justice.Dick Timmer - 2021 - Dissertation, Utrecht University
    Despite the prominence of thresholds and limits in theories of distributive justice, there is no general account of their role within such theories. This has allowed an ongoing lack of clarity and misunderstanding around threshold views in distributive justice. In this thesis, I develop an account of the conceptual structure of such views. Such an account helps understand and characterize threshold views, can subsume what may seem to be different debates about such views under one conceptual header, and can be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • L’égalité instrumentale?Pierre-Yves Néron - 2014 - Philosophiques 41 (1):165.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Defending relational egalitarianism and the two principles of equality.Tsz Chun Choy - unknown
    This essay shall survey two streams of liberal egalitarianism, namely luck egalitarianism and relational egalitarianism, and argue that the latter is superior. The two streams have a substantive difference in terms of the essence of egalitarian justice, the role of individual responsibility, and the interpretation of the idea of treating citizens as equals. This essay shows that the idea of egalitarian justice is best understood by seeing it as an idea demanding the realization of egalitarian relationships. Principle of distribution is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rethinking the Very Idea of Egalitarian Markets and Corporations: Why Relationships Might Matter More than Distribution.Pierre-Yves Néron - 2015 - Business Ethics Quarterly 25 (1):93-124.
    ABSTRACT: What kinds of markets, market regulations, and business organizations are compatible with contemporary egalitarian theories of justice? This article argues that any thoughtful answer to this question will have to draw on recent developments in political philosophy that are concerned not only with the equality of the distribution of core goods but also with the requirements for equality of status, voice, and so on, in the relations between individuals and within organizations. The dominance of theories of distributive justice in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Global egalitarianism as a practice-independent ideal.Merten Reglitz - 2011 - Dissertation, University of Warwick
    In this thesis I defend the principle of global egalitarianism. According to this idea most of the existing detrimental inequalities in this world are morally objectionable. As detrimental inequalities I understand those that are not to the benefit of the worst off people and that can be non-wastefully removed. To begin with, I consider various justifications of the idea that only those detrimental inequalities that occur within one and the same state are morally objectionable. I identify Thomas Nagel’s approach as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Individually Allocating Principles and Market Risks.Tobey Scharding - 2016 - Public Affairs Quarterly 30 (3):259-279.
    This paper investigates one of Anderson’s (2007) objections to individually-allocating principles of distributive justice: that they are incompatible with the free market. I argue that Anderson’s objection applies only to the specific principle she discusses, associated with luck egalitarianism, and not to individually-allocating principles generally. I then discuss different individually-allocating principles, the precepts of justice, broached by Rawls (1971,1999) but never developed by him. The precepts determine people’s distributive entitlements based on their contributions, efforts, and needs. I offer an interpretation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark