Coercion, Value and Justice: Redistribution in a Neutral State

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I argue that a commitment to liberal neutrality, and an opposition to coercion, means that we ought to support a redistributive state in which wealth, insofar as it is instrumental in allowing us to pursue our ends, is equalised. This is due to the fact that any conception of justice and desert works in favour of some, but against others, and that those who lose out by any particular conception are likely not to consent to it (meaning that its imposition is coercive). As having some understanding of justice and desert is inescapable in a society, coercion is unavoidable. However, those who are harmed by the imposition of a certain conception of justice and desert deserve compensation for their foregone position in the alternate conceptions in which they would be better off. This compensation is owed by those who have benefitted from the existing conception of justice and desert.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-01-07
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
45 ( #57,457 of 64,218 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #44,048 of 64,218 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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