Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 393–407

Choices Chance and Change: Luck Egalitarianism Over Time

Authors

    • Department of Politics & International RelationsUniversity of Reading
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10677-012-9340-0

Cite this article as:
Tomlin, P. Ethic Theory Moral Prac (2013) 16: 393. doi:10.1007/s10677-012-9340-0

Abstract

The family of theories dubbed ‘luck egalitarianism’ represent an attempt to infuse egalitarian thinking with a concern for personal responsibility, arguing that inequalities are just when they result from, or the extent to which they result from, choice, but are unjust when they result from, or the extent to which they result from, luck. In this essay I argue that luck egalitarians should sometimes seek to limit inequalities, even when they have a fully choice-based pedigree (i.e., result only from the choices of agents). I grant that the broad approach is correct but argue that the temporal standpoint from which we judge whether the person can be held responsible, or the extent to which they can be held responsible, should be radically altered. Instead of asking, as Standard (or Static) Luck Egalitarianism seems to, whether or not, or to what extent, a person was responsible for the choice at thetime ofchoosing, and asking the question of responsibility only once, we should ask whether, or to what extent, they are responsible for the choice at thepoint atwhich weare seekingto discoverwhether, or towhat extent, the inequalityis just, and so the question of responsibility is not settled but constantly under review. Such an approach will differ from Standard Luck Egalitarianism only if responsibility for a choice is not set in stone—if responsibility can weaken then we should not see the boundary between luck and responsibility within a particular action as static. Drawing on Derek Parfit’s illuminating discussions of personal identity, and contemporary literature on moral responsibility, I suggest there are good reasons to think that responsibility can weaken—that we are not necessarily fully responsible for a choice for ever, even if we were fully responsible at the time of choosing. I call the variant of luck egalitarianism that recognises this shift in temporal standpoint and that responsibility can weaken Dynamic Luck Egalitarianism (DLE). In conclusion I offer a preliminary discussion of what kind of policies DLE would support.

Keywords

Luck egalitarianismPersonal identityEqualityResponsibilityDistributive justice

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012