EQUALITY, COMMUNITY, AND THE SCOPE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: A PARTIAL DEFENSE OF COHEN’S VISION

Socialist Studies 10 (1):152-173 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Luck egalitarians equalize the outcome enjoyed by people who exemplify the same degree of distributive desert by removing the influence of luck. They also try to calibrate differential rewards according to the pattern of distributive desert. This entails that they have to decide upon, among other things, the rate of reward, i.e., a principled way of distributing rewards to groups exercising different degrees of the relevant desert. However, the problem of the choice of reward principle is a relatively and undeservedly neglected issue among luck egalitarians. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the importance and difficulty of this problem, and to elaborate upon G. A. Cohen's community-oriented response to it. In the last section, I provide a taxonomy of distributive pluralism, contrasting Cohen’s view with other (not so genuine) pluralisms - especially with all-things-considered varieties - while trying to motivate readers to adopt the more robust form of pluralism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CHOECA
Revision history
First archival date: 2015-04-29
Latest version: 1 (2015-05-04)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Justice for Hedgehogs.Dworkin, Ronald

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-04-29

Total views
322 ( #13,961 of 50,349 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
50 ( #11,585 of 50,349 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.