Luck Egalitarianism, Responsibility, and Political Liberalism

Dialogue 55 (1):107-130 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Luck egalitarians argue that distributive justice should be understood in terms of our capacity to be responsible for our choices. Both proponents and critics assume that the theory must rely on a comprehensive conception of responsibility. I respond to luck egalitarianism’s critics by developing a political conception of responsibility that remains agnostic on the metaphysics of free choice. I construct this political conception by developing a novel reading of John Rawls’ distinction between the political and the comprehensive. A surprising consequence is that many responsibility-based objections to luck egalitarianism turn out to be objections to Rawls’ political liberalism as well.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-01-20
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
256 ( #17,856 of 51,672 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #21,770 of 51,672 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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