Luck Egalitarianism: The Difference Between Option Luck And Brute Luck

Distributive justice, or economic justice, is concerned with giving all members of society a "fair share" of the benefits and resources available. Fair allocation of resources, or distributive justice, is crucial to the stability of a society and the well-being of its members. When issues of distributive justice are inadequately addressed and the item to be distributed is highly valued, intractable conflicts frequently result.

Nozick’s entitlement theory is a theory of justice and how society regulates the distribution of goods, money and property. “All that matters for Noziak is how people came to have what they have, not the pattern or results of the distribution of goods.” (Shaw and Barry, pg.115) His entitlement theory comprises of three main principles which were:

The second type of luck, circumstantial, was described as “luck in one’s circumstances – the kind of problems and situations one faces”, (Nagel, p.28). The drunken drivers’ example belongs to the third type of luck: resultant luck. To many philosophers, the third and fourth type of luck is accountable for one which deals with the causes and effects of action, as Nagel explains, “luck in how one is determined by antecedent circumstances, and luck in the way one’s action and projects turn out.”, (Nagel, p.28). The commonality of these four categories of luck is the idea that “one cannot be more culpable or estimable for anything than one is for that fraction of it which is under one’s control. It seems irrational to take or dispense credit or blame for matters over which a person has no control, or for their influence on results over which he has partial control.” (Nagel, p.28).

We don’t have a choice with what family we are born into. Often times, the socioeconomic status we are born with dictates the rest of our lives, from our education, equality, and opportunities. Sometimes, no matter how hard we try, these aspects of our lives remain true till the day we die. Entitlement, or expectations as some may put it, sticks with citizens and prevents them from achieving their dreams. However, we must remember that entitlement is not concrete; rather, it is an entirely falsified form of classifying those below the top class, cognitively inhibiting one’s ability to pursue their goals—something everyone should overcome.

Hardin’s lifeboat analogy proposes an interesting situation. If a lifeboat with 50 people on board and a capacity of 60 floated past 100 other people in the water, who would we take, if anyone? If we tried to take everyone, the boat would capsize and everyone would either become stranded or die. It would lead to “complete justice, complete catastrophe” (Hardin 1). If we took no one, we would constantly have to stave off desperate people climbing on board and those who claim entitlement. If we decide to push our lifeboat to its limits, and add 10 more people, how would we choose who to take? What I gather from this is that there’s no truly correct solution. If we take everyone, we all die. If we take no one, we get shamed and blamed for leaving others behind. If we take a select few, we get called out as biased by those who weren’t selected.

1. There exists a patterned distribution D1, which is a favorite patter of non-entitlement conception of justice

Many societies, in the past and present, consider equality as a source of aspiration or achievement. However, critics show that there is lack of demonstrable progress of equality, and as a result the life of humankind has remained complex. The principle of equality is one that seeks to arrive at condemnation of any form of discrimination; it is unjust to treat people differently in ways that deny to some the social benefits unless we can prove that there is a real difference between them that is relevant to the differential treatment. As such, equality considers it not acceptable to treat people differently on the basis of age, gender, or racial variations since these factors promote denial to social benefits, discrimination and harm. Various definitions of equality in the political, social, and economic realm have resulted in different interpretation which impact the way the society relates.

The influences of luck in human’s action that dominant the theme of philosophy. It is undeniable that luck is an important role in people lives by the influences of what may happen and our character is projected by this as well. This brings on tension of trying to control our life and knowing that it could be affected by circumstance completely beyond our control sparks many questions. In the article on “Moral Luck”, written by Thomas Nagel, describes the motivation for denying moral luck existence” (Nelkin). Considering Nagel article, what is the correct way we should view people circumstance without judging them?

In “The Fallacy of Fairness”, Sowell’s primary point is that life has never been nor will it ever be anywhere close to being “fair”. An example he uses to illustrate this point is “Twins have average IQ’s several point lower than children bornsingly. Whether that is due to having to share resources in the womb or having to share parents’ attention after birth, the fact is what it is …” (Sowell, 2010 p 8). Too often we poison ourselves to think that everything in the world we share has to be equal.

We would like to think that we live in a just world where good things go to the most deserving but that is a fallacy. Things in reality work in ways that defy our expectations. What may seem intuitive or like common sense is not what is in practice. Sometimes what would be intuitive may actually be

He cites the example of lottery, inheritance, innate abilities, personal inclination towards risky ventures and value differences contributing greatly to one person's ascent to high ranks and another's downfall. However, we believe that just redistribution of resources is practical and more desirable than leaving people to the mercy of free market forces. It is so because humanity is not about mere efficiency and utility. Unlike bees, we should not and do not throw our inefficient and weak out of our societies, and one's access to better life puts greater responsibility to look out for others with meager resources. This model has worked successfully in countries like UK, Norway, and so on. Even in these countries, if there is inequality (which is true for UK at least), it is just another result of individualistic and capitalistic mindset.

In reaction to gross and compounding economic disparities in the international sphere, cosmopolitan philosophers like Moellendorf have addressed the international state, claiming that the degree of inequality is unjustifiable. Moellendorf operates with a Rawlsian understanding of ethical relations, but expands this notion from the domestic sense into the international sense, claiming that the degree of globalization is sufficient such that it creates an association in which the interdependence is “sufficiently strong, largely non-voluntary and constitutive of a significant part of the background rules that govern members’ lives,” forming the basis of duties for distributive justice. From this understanding for the need for global distributive justice, Moellendorf claims that the main strategy to address this inequality is through a global progressive tax.

Conversely, Egalitarians argue that there is little to no positive impact of inequality on society. They clearly highlight the existence of an unfair balance of privilege and disadvantage, citing educational advantages as a key factor. Egalitarians believe that these inequalities contribute to a system which bases its reward system, not on individual merit, but on the power of the elite class to control access to higher social positions, also known as ‘sponsored mobility’:

Ronald Dworkin is a luck egalitarian, and he endorses the distributive view of equality. In his article, What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources, he differentiates the brute luck and option luck, and this distinction is influential in the later development of luck egalitarianism. In this paper, I will examine Dworkin’s distinction between option luck and brute luck, also I will bring up Vallentyne’s argument which is against Dworkin’s distinction. Lastly, I will raise an example showing that Dworkin’s distinction may not be able to cut option luck and brute luck clearly in some situation.

This chapter is a review of relevant literature on distributive justice. The chapter enables the researcher to examine the level of literary works on the subject matter of the study. It adopts a thematic method in its approach, namely: justice in general; theories of justice; theories and principles of distributive justice; distributive justice and the common good; distributive justice and private ownership of property; distributive justice and charity; distributive justice in relation to politics and religion; and distributive justice and peace.