Choice, circumstance, and the value of equality

Scheffler, Samuel

doi:10.1177/1470594x05049434

Cited by 156 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We may have reason to secure an equal distribution of resources and we may have reason to ensure certain relations. Under some conditions, the two claims may even be supportive, such that we have reason to secure an equal distribution of resources because we have reason to ensure certain relations (Anderson, 1999: 313-14;Scheffler, 2005). Our third aim is to delve deeper into this possibility, as well as more generally to explore the complex relationship between these two types of reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributions and Relations: A Hybrid Account

Moles¹,

Parr

2018

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a deep divide among political philosophers of an egalitarian stripe. On the one hand, there are so-called distributive egalitarians, who hold that equality obtains within a political community when each of its members enjoys an equal share of the community’s resources. On the other hand, there are so-called social egalitarians, who instead hold that equality obtains within a political community when each of its members stands in certain relations to other members of the community, such as non-domination and lack of oppression. In this article, we have three aims. Our first aim is to cast doubt on the helpfulness of characterizing the debate in this way. Our second aim is to reconstruct this debate in alternative and more precise terms, so that disagreements between advocates of either side are easier to evaluate. Our third aim is to advance a hybrid account that integrates element from both views.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributions and Relations: A Hybrid Account

Moles¹,

Parr

2018

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Samuel Scheffler has pointed out, this distributive formula must be part of a larger normative theory 20. Unless the category of choice is explained as distinctive in a way that makes it a privileged indicator of the fairness or unfairness of an outcome, it is difficult to understand why it should have such a fundamental importance as it has within luck-egalitarianism.…”

Section: Discussion: Individual Responsibility Rejected?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifestyle, responsibility and justice

Feiring

2007

J Med Ethics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anderson criticizes this approach because the concept of eligibility of compensation is grounded in the assumption of inferiority. The assumption that some people are inferior to others points not to humanitarian concerns but to concerns of pity (5,7,8). The discourse of compensation is viewed as disrespect to vulnerable and/or disabled human beings because it implies that able people are superior.…”

Section: Arguments Against Luck Egalitarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Luck Egalitarianism, Individual Responsibility and Health

Ekmekçi¹,

Arda²

2015

Balkan Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basic ethical theories have various attitudes towards right to health. Utilitarian ethical theory states that it is ethically obligatory to act in a way which would create the most utility/ happiness for the majority of the population. Thus, utilitarian perspective regards rights to health as a tool to achieve utility/happiness of the majority. In this view, health is not recognized as a fundamental human right with intrinsic ethical value but rather a means to the utmost good which is utility/ Luck Egalitarianism has frequently been discussed in the recent literature because of the potential impact of this theory on health financing. Luck Egalitarianism puts forth a theory of distributive justice which says that the fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck such as being born with poor native endowments, having difficult family circumstances or suffering from accidents and illness. On the other hand, if individuals face ill health because of faults of their own, then society has no duty to supply health services to them. Many arguments for and against this theory have been raised since it was first introduced. The proponents of Luck Egalitarianism focus on the concepts that free choice and respecting the autonomy of the individual determine whether health services are deserved. The criticisms against the concept of Luck Egalitarianism are that it is harsh to the needy and abandons the wretched, discriminates against the disabled, is against basic humanitarian principles, is incompatible with human dignity, and is in dissonance with real life. We agree with the basic proposition of Luck Egalitarian theory, which states that "inequalities deriving from unchosen features of people's circumstances are unjust and therefore should be compensated for". Our agreement leads us to an opposite conclusion. We propose that the "unchosen features of people's circumstances" include more than personal disadvantages. The social features to be included in the context of inequalities deriving from unchosen features of peoples circumstances are, socioeconomic status (SES), access to social determinants of health, and the ethnic, cultural and religious identity of individuals. Our other propositions are the mutable character of choices which makes individual responsibility of preferences implausible; the problematic causal relationship between responsibility and ill-health; the disregard of the motives behind decisions; problems with implementation in real health service circumstances; and the contradictory nature of Luck Egalitarianism for principles of medical ethics. These arguments draw attention to possible ethical and practical consequences of implementation of health policies arising from Luck Egalitarian view for patients and for health care providers. In this paper, we will first define Luck Egalitarianism. Then, we will discuss arguments for and against the theory in the literature. Our final task is to suggest additional criticisms of the theory and justify them.

show abstract

Choice, circumstance, and the value of equality

Cited by 156 publications

References 4 publications

Distributions and Relations: A Hybrid Account

Distributions and Relations: A Hybrid Account

Lifestyle, responsibility and justice

Luck Egalitarianism, Individual Responsibility and Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About