|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
Rewrote "political philosophers" so that the plural "S" was outside of the brackets and thus the link now actually points to political philosophy instead of being a dead red link - Livingston 22:15 28 April, 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone explain, or provide a cite for, the statement "... but Rawls himself was not a luck egalitarian."? His approach is based on luck and I have seen articles that describe his approach as belonging in the "luck" category of distribution philosophies. If there is a subtle distinction that I am missing, it would be interesting to include a brief explanation in the article. --Voljust 20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well one reason why Rawls is not a LE is that he doesn't believe that people have an entitlement to the fruits of their option luck, and, generally for him entitlements are set by the public rules constitutive of the basic structure and a just distribution is whatever results from the operation of that structure. Since the outcomes of that operation will not be brute luck neutralizing they will fail to be just from a LE POV. Bristoleast 09:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with your assessment there. For Rawls, though people in a well ordered society are driven by a sense of justice and are committed to the principles decided in the original position, they also simultaneously are guaranteed a legitimate expectation for compensation for the fruits of their labor when those fruits are socially desirable, in high demand, etc. Though he wants to eliminate the effect of factors which affect life chances, but which are arbitrary from a moral point of view in the design of the principles of justice, parties in a well ordered society are under no such restriction. So long as their actions and choices are consistent with a basic structure that respects the two principles, they're free to pursue their own individual conception of the good. For those reasons, it's safe to call Rawls a luck egalitarian. Llamabr (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with my presentation of Anderson's critique of luck egalitarianism, which it strikes me is perhaps slightly misleading. Anyone who can think of a better example of a choice not legitimating a an outcome because the set of options it is made from is inadequate is welcome to substitute it for the old 'money/life' chestnutRobJubb 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC).
- I have to agree. I read it several times and it seems like a nonsequitor. (By "it" I mean Anderson's critique, at least as it's presented here.) It seems to be saying that in order to be a luck egalitarianist, one has to believe that everything that's chosen is acceptable. Huhwhat? --BrianH123 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Explanation of reversion
I reverted the edits by "Nicodemos" because they introduced some basic errors: N changed the page to say that LEs believe in equalizing the results of luck generally rather than brute luck, and also introduced a change that referred to diffences in "material wealth", thereby departing from neutrality about the appropriate currency for egalitarian justice (resources, welfare, opportunity for welfare) something on which different LEs have differing views. Bristoleast
- I understand your concerns, but I would suggest editing the page rather than reverting wholesale. -- Nikodemos 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Left or right?
The article states that luck-egalitarianism is left-wing. That maybe the case in the U.S., but it would be considered right-wing in Europe, or at least the Netherlands as the proposed distribution would be favored by the VVD, a right-wing party in the Netherlands. Gebruiker:Dedalus (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states in the definition of the philosophy "... how well off people are should be wholly determined by the responsible choices people make and not to differences in their unchosen circumstances."
The problem is that those are not two separate things. What choices people make are entirely due to their unchosen circumstances. In fact, it is not possible otherwise, because it is implicit in the meaning of an "individual" - namely that an individual is born in certain circumstances - place, time, and parents. All of both nature and nurture are determined by those three things - all of which are unchosen circumstances.
So, it is logically impossible for anything to happen in human society which does not follow from unchosen circumstances.