Luck Egalitarianism

Luck egalitarianism is the view that distributive justice requires neutralizing the effects of brute luck while holding people responsible for the outcomes of their genuine choices.

Definition

Luck egalitarianism holds that inequalities are unjust when they stem from circumstances beyond a person's control (brute luck) but may be just when they result from that person's voluntary choices (option luck).

Scope

Covers the core distinction between brute luck and option luck, the responsibility-sensitive versions developed by Arneson and Cohen, the place of choice in egalitarian justice, and the major objections — especially Anderson's relational critique. The choice of currency is treated under 'equality of what'.

Core questions

• Which inequalities are unjust, and which are people responsible for?
• How should the line between choice and circumstance be drawn?
• Does responsibility-sensitive equality abandon those who make bad choices?
• Is neutralizing brute luck really the point of equality?

Key concepts

• brute luck
• option luck
• responsibility-sensitivity
• equal opportunity for welfare
• involuntary disadvantage
• the abandonment objection

Key theories

Equal opportunity for welfare

Arneson argues that justice requires equal opportunity for welfare: people should face equivalent prospects, so that resulting inequalities reflect their own choices rather than unequal starting points or unchosen circumstances.

Neutralizing brute luck

Cohen argues that egalitarian justice aims to eliminate involuntary disadvantage — disadvantage for which the sufferer cannot be held responsible — while allowing inequalities that arise from genuinely voluntary choice.

The relational critique

Anderson argues that luck egalitarianism is misguided: by making aid conditional on the worse-off not being to blame, it abandons the imprudent and expresses disrespect, missing the true point of equality, which is to end oppression.

History

Luck egalitarianism crystallized from Dworkin's brute-luck/option-luck distinction and the 1989 papers of Cohen and Arneson, which made personal responsibility central to egalitarian justice. Anderson's 1999 'What Is the Point of Equality?' launched the influential relational-egalitarian critique that reframed the debate.

Debates

The abandonment objection

Whether holding people responsible for the consequences of their choices wrongly licenses society to abandon the imprudent to severe hardship, as Anderson charges against luck egalitarians.

Distributive vs. relational equality

Whether the point of equality is to correct the distribution of brute-luck advantage, as Cohen and Arneson hold, or to establish relations of equal standing, as Anderson argues.

Key figures

• G. A. Cohen
• Richard Arneson
• Elizabeth Anderson
• Ronald Dworkin

Seminal works

• cohen1989
• arneson1989
• anderson1999

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between brute luck and option luck?

Brute luck is how things turn out through no choice of one's own, such as being born with a disability, while option luck results from deliberate, avoidable gambles; luck egalitarians seek to neutralize the former but not the latter.