Graduation Year
2016
Document Type
Open Access Senior Thesis
Degree Name
Bachelor of Arts
Department
Politics and International Relations
Reader 1
Mark Golub
Reader 2
Rivka Weinberg
Terms of Use & License Information
Rights Information
© 2016 Emilie Ho
Abstract
In the last four decades, luck egalitarianism has emerged as a hotly debated theory of distributive justice. The tenet, in its most normative sense, calls for distribution or assistance when circumstances of disadvantage arise from bad luck that is independent of human influence. Disadvantages that can be traced back to individual choice and responsibility, on the other hand, are left for the sufferer to bear. In this paper, I argue that luck egalitarianism should be abandoned as a standard for determining whether a disadvantage should be addressed, because the assumption that there are instances of disadvantage completely attributable to individual choice is flawed. Brute luck, or luck that emerges from beyond human control, influences most human outcomes, making it difficult to confidently attribute outcomes to option luck, or luck that stems from human choice. Without option luck, luck egalitarianism becomes obsolete as the principle rests on the distinction between brute and option luck.
Recommended Citation
Ho, Emilie, "Can We Really Claim ‘Full Responsibility’? The Problem With Normative Luck Egalitarianism in a Luck-Pervasive World" (2016). Scripps Senior Theses. 824.
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/824
