Brute Luck Equality and Desert
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23152731 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Vallentyne (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Pages | 169-185 |
| Publication date | 2003-07-24 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | CHAPTER |
| Venue | Desert and justice (SOURCE_BOOK) |
| Publisher | Oxford University PressOxford (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/oso/9780199259762.003.0008 |
| OpenAlex | W2260497053 |
| ISBN | 9780199259762 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
In recent years, interest in desert-based theories of justice has increased, and this seems to represent a challenge to equality-based theories of justice.1 The best distribution of outcome-advantage with respect to desert, after all, need not be the most equal distribution of outcome-advantage. Some individuals may deserve more than others. Outcome egalitarianism is, however, implausible, and so the conflict of outcome desert with outcome equality is of little significance.2 Most contemporary versions of egalitarianism are concerned with neutralizing the differential effects of brute luck and not with equality of outcome. I shall argue that, in order to be plausible, a desert-based theory of justice can and must be compatible with this form of egalitarianism.
Desert (philosophy) · Distribution (mathematics) · Economic Justice · Economics · Egalitarianism · Epistemology · Luck · Mathematical economics · Outcome (game theory) · Political science · Positive economics · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.32 |
| Citation span | 2004 - 2025 (22) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |