Brute Luck Research Articles

What Is the Point of Equality?

This chapter argues that the problems stem from a flawed understanding of the point of equality. It also argues that in focusing on correcting a supposed cosmic injustice, egalitarian writing has lost sight of the distinctively political aims of egalitarianism. The chapter presents a series of cases in which luck egalitarianism generates injustice. It shows that the reasons luck egalitarians offer for refusing to come to the aid of the victims of bad option luck express a failure to treat these unfortunates with equal respect and concern. The chapter suggests that the reasons luck egalitarians offer for coming to the aid of the victims of bad brute luck express disrespect for them. Where luck egalitarians tend to be either harsh or paternalistic toward the victims of bad option luck, they seem compassionate toward the victims of bad brute luck.

Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income

This paper considers whether arguments presented in Philippe Van Parijs' Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? succeed in rebutting the objection that the introduction of a substantial unconditional basic income (UBI) would allow non-working citizens to free-ride on the efforts of, and so exploit, working citizens. It considers Van Parjis' ‘external assets argument’ for UBI, and finds that this argument does not succeed in reconciling payment of a substantial UBI with the reciprocity principle which underpins this ‘exploitation objection’. It considers and rejects Van Parijs' implicit claim that the exploitation objection must be grounded in a distributive principle which contradicts the egalitarian commitment to prevent brute luck inequality. It concludes that Van Parjis has failed, thus far, to articulate a convincing response to the exploitation objection.

Self-Ownership and Equality: Brute Luck, Gifts, Universal Dominance, and LeximinReal Freedom for All. Philippe Van Parijs's

Previous articleNext article No AccessReview EssaySelf-Ownership and Equality: Brute Luck, Gifts, Universal Dominance, and Leximin Real Freedom for All. Philippe Van Parijs'sPeter VallentynePeter Vallentyne Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 107, Number 2Jan., 1997 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/233723 Views: 20Total views on this site Citations: 23Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1997 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Giacomo Pisani A justification of basic income beyond a theory of justice, Oñati Socio-Legal Series 12, no.44 (Aug 2022): 737–761.https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1265M. Niaz Asadullah, Alain Trannoy, Sandy Tubeuf, Gaston Yalonetzky Measuring educational inequality of opportunity: pupil’s effort matters, World Development 138 (Feb 2021): 105262.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105262Roberto Fumagalli Buyer Beware: A Critique of Leading Virtue Ethics Defenses of Markets, Journal of Social Philosophy 51, no.33 (Mar 2020): 457–482.https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12336Sang Yoon (Tim) Lee, Ananth Seshadri Economic Policy and Equality of Opportunity, The Economic Journal 128, no.612612 (Jan 2018): F114–F151.https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12480Jørgen Pedersen Just inheritance taxation, Philosophy Compass 13, no.44 (Feb 2018): e12491.https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12491Arnaud Lefranc, Alain Trannoy Equality of opportunity, moral hazard and the timing of luck, Social Choice and Welfare 49, no.3-43-4 (May 2017): 469–497.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1054-8Anna-Karin Andersson, Frode Lindemark, Kjell Arne Johansson Priority rules as solutions to conflicting health care rights, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20, no.11 (Sep 2016): 67–76.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9728-zMaximilian Sommer The Normative Argument for an Unconditional Basic Income, (Mar 2016): 7–49.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24064-0_2Christopher Freiman, Adam Lerner Self-ownership and disgust: why compulsory body part redistribution gets under our skin, Philosophical Studies 172, no.1212 (Mar 2015): 3167–3190.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0463-8Cornelius Cappelen, Jørgen Pedersen Borgerlønn: en rettferdig reform?, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 56, no.33 (Sep 2015): 354–371.https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-291X-2015-03-06Hugh Lazenby Luck, Risk and the Market, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17, no.44 (Sep 2013): 667–680.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-013-9454-zSerena Olsaretti RESCUING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY FROM LIBERTARIANISM, Economics and Philosophy 29, no.11 (Apr 2013): 43–63.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267113000072Gideon Elford Equality of Opportunity and Other-Affecting Choice: Why Luck Egalitarianism Does Not Require Brute Luck Equality, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16, no.11 (Dec 2011): 139–149.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-011-9331-6Jean-Sébastien Gharbi, Cléa Sambuc Propriété de soi et justice sociale chez les libertariens, Cahiers d'économie Politique n° 62, no.11 (Sep 2012): 187–222.https://doi.org/10.3917/cep.062.0187Lloyd P. Gerson WHO OWNS WHAT? SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE FOUNDATION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, Social Philosophy and Policy 29, no.11 (Dec 2011): 81–105.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052511000069Arnaud Lefranc, Nicolas Pistolesi, Alain Trannoy Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France, Journal of Public Economics 93, no.11-1211-12 (Dec 2009): 1189–1207.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.07.008Davide Tondani Universal Basic Income and Negative Income Tax: Two different ways of thinking redistribution, The Journal of Socio-Economics 38, no.22 (Mar 2009): 246–255.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.10.006Arnaud Lefranc, Nicolas Pistolesi, Alain Trannoy INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES VS. INEQUALITY OF OUTCOMES: ARE WESTERN SOCIETIES ALL ALIKE?, Review of Income and Wealth 54, no.44 (Dec 2008): 513–546.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2008.00289.xKASPER LIPPERT-RASMUSSEN Against Self-Ownership: There Are No Fact-Insensitive Ownership Rights over One's Body, Philosophy & Public Affairs 36, no.11 (Jan 2008): 86–118.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00125.xJean-Fabien Spitz Le libertarisme de gauche : l'égalité sous condition de la propriété de soi, Raisons politiques 23, no.33 (Jan 2006): 23.https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.023.0023Serena Olsaretti Liberty, Desert and the Market, 48 (Sep 2009).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487422Richard Sturn, Rudi Dujmovits Basic Income in Complex Worlds, Analyse & Kritik 22, no.22 (Jan 2000).https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2000-0203Daniel Shapiro Why Even Egalitarians Should Favor Market Health Insurance, Social Philosophy and Policy 15, no.22 (Jan 2009): 84–132.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001965

The Remnants of Free Exercise

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Remnants of Free ExerciseDouglas LaycockDouglas Laycock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Supreme Court Review Volume 19901990 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/scr.1990.3109655 Views: 32Total views on this site Citations: 14Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1991 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Freedom of Religion and Marriage Equality, (Jan 2022): 202–226.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6807-1.ch007Andrew Shorten Toleration and Religious Discrimination, (Sep 2021): 827–851.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42121-2_1Wendy E. Parmet From the Shadows: The Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court’s COVID-Free Exercise Cases, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 49, no.44 (Jan 2022): 564–579.https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2021.80Andrew Shorten Toleration and Religious Discrimination, (Oct 2020): 1–25.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03227-2_1-1Aurélia Bardon, Jeffrey W. Howard Laborde, liberalism, and religion, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23, no.11 (Jun 2018): 1–8.https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2018.1487229 Religious Liberty, (Jan 2019): 54–75.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7961-8.ch003Elizabeth Sheehy Expert evidence on coercive control in support of self-defence: The trial of Teresa Craig, Criminology & Criminal Justice 18, no.11 (Sep 2017): 100–114.https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817733524Muhammad Velji Change Your Look, Change Your Luck: Religious Self-Transformation and Brute Luck Egalitarianism, Res Philosophica 92, no.22 (Jan 2015): 453–471.https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2015.92.2.13Ted L. McDorman, Aldo Chircop Canada's Oceans Policy Framework: An Overview, Coastal Management 40, no.22 (Feb 2012): 133–144.https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.652517Emmanuelle Richez Francophone Minority Communities: The Last Constitutional Standard-Bearers of Trudeau’s Language Regime, International Journal of Canadian Studies , no.45-4645-46 (Jan 2012): 35.https://doi.org/10.7202/1009893arC. SCOTT FINDLAY, STEWART ELGIE, BRIAN GILES, LINDA BURR Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act, Conservation Biology 23, no.66 (Dec 2009): 1609–1617.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01255.xWilliam T. Hipwell A Deleuzian critique of resource-use management politics in Industria, The Canadian Geographer/Le G?ographe canadien 48, no.33 (Sep 2004): 356–377.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-3658.2004.00065.xJohn Wybraniec, Roger Finke Religious Regulation and the Courts, (Jan 2004): 535–553.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9094-5_33 Kevin R. den Dulk and J. Mitchell Pickerill Bridging the Lawmaking Process: Organized Interests, Court-Congress Interaction, and Church-State Relations, Polity 35, no.33 (Nov 2016): 419–440.https://doi.org/10.1086/POLv35n3ms3235526

Entitlements, Rights, and Fairness: An Experimental Examination of Subjects' Concepts of Distributive Justice

THE research reported in this paper arose from a previous experimental study conducted by the authors.' That study involved bargains struck between two subjects who had opposing payoff functions and full information of one another's payoffs. By a flip of a coin one participant could choose a noncooperative outcome, unilaterally: the winner of the coin toss could simply choose an outcome which gave him $12 and left the other subject nothing, whether or not the loser agreed. However, if the two subjects cooperated, they could obtain from the experimenter $14, which could be split between the subjects in any mutually agreed-on manner. Cooperative game theory predicts that the subjects will cooperate and divide the rewards $13 to $1 (the Nash bargaining solution: an even division of the $2 gain from trade). Under no circumstances should the winner of the coin flip settle for less than $12, according to game