Institut for Statskundskab

What Is the Point of the Harshness Objection?

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Dokumenter

DOI

According to luck egalitarianism, it is unjust if some are worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. The most common criticism of luck egalitarianism is the 'harshness objection', which states that luck egalitarianism allows for too harsh consequences, as it fails to provide justification for why those responsible for their bad fate can be entitled to society's assistance. It has largely gone unnoticed that the harshness objection is open to a number of very different interpretations. We present four different interpretations of the harshness objection in which the problem pertains to counterintuitive implications, badness of outcome, disproportionality, or inconsistency, respectively. We analyse and discuss appropriate luck egalitarian replies. Disentangling these different versions clarifies what is at the heart of this dispute and reveals the point of the harshness objection. We conclude that only the inconsistency version involves a durable problem for luck egalitarianism.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftUtilitas
Vol/bind32
Nummer4
Sider (fra-til)427-443
Antal sider17
ISSN0953-8208
DOI
StatusUdgivet - dec. 2020

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

Aktiviteter

  • Philosophy Seminar

    Aktivitet: Deltagelse i eller arrangement af en begivenhed - typerDeltagelse i eller organisering af workshop, seminar eller kursus

Projekter

Download-statistik

Ingen data tilgængelig

ID: 175438117