Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Dedication
- Introduction: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice
- PART 1 Luck Egalitarianisms
- 1 Equality of Resources
- 2 Equal Opportunity for Welfare
- PART 2 Luck Egalitarianism as an Account of Equality
- PART 3 Luck Egalitarianism as an Account of Justice
- Conclusion: A More Efficient Luck Egalitarianism
- Bibliography
- Index
2 - Equal Opportunity for Welfare
from PART 1 - Luck Egalitarianisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 September 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Dedication
- Introduction: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice
- PART 1 Luck Egalitarianisms
- 1 Equality of Resources
- 2 Equal Opportunity for Welfare
- PART 2 Luck Egalitarianism as an Account of Equality
- PART 3 Luck Egalitarianism as an Account of Justice
- Conclusion: A More Efficient Luck Egalitarianism
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Introductory Remarks
Consider the following simplified scenario:
1. (a) Steve holds £10.
(b) Harry holds £10.
2. (a) Steve's taste is such that he would obtain 1 unit of welfare (hereafter: unit) from consuming a hamburger.
(b) Steve's taste is such that he would obtain 10 units from consuming a steak.
(c) Harry's taste is such that he would obtain 10 units from consuming a hamburger.
(d) Harry's taste is such that he would obtain 1 unit from consuming a steak.
(e) No change in the tastes of Steve or Harry is now possible.
3. (a) A hamburger now costs £2.
(b) A steak now costs £10.
4. Steve would now prefer to have Harry's taste.
(a) Prior to t (= a point in the past) Steve's taste was that of Harry's.
(b) Harry has not deliberately cultivated his taste, nor could he ever have eliminated it.
(c) Steve deliberately cultivated his present taste at t.
Which of these facts is relevant to egalitarian distributive justice? A wealth egalitarian replies that 1 alone is relevant, and that the existing distribution is perfectly just. A welfare egalitarian begs to differ: on her account, 2 and 3 also come into play. She views the distribution as unjust, on the grounds that Steve is only able to secure 10 units with his funds, whereas Harry is able to secure 50 units with his.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Luck EgalitarianismEquality Responsibility and Justice, pp. 44 - 86Publisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2009