Abe Nuri: Rethinking Egalitarianism: Value f Burden


For egalitarians, a large problem is to distinguish between choice and luck. An ideal society where luck never determines distribution would not necessarily eliminate inequality. Hurley: a doctrine can be egalitarian even if distribution is affected by other factors. Arneson: It does not follow that eliminating bad luck implies equality of distribution. Cohen: Equal access to advantage requires equal luck for all.

Egalitarianism should (1) favor more equality over less and (2) eliminate the role of luck.

Nuri’s view: egalitarianism should be measured by value of labor (C) where C = pay per hour, adjusted fro hazard, arduousness, and preparation. So C X L (labor) should be equal, once these factors are dealt with. This is the Egalitarian Relation.

Arneson: Even ineliminable wrongs are still unjust.

Eliminating Luck: If Juan and Sarah do the same work, but it is more psychologically burdensome for Sarah, then Sarah can either work fewer hours or the same (and find it more burdensome than Juan). In either case, Sarah receives an unjust distribution due to luck. The solution is to pay Sarah more per hour. In the future, it may be technologically possible to measure psychological burden.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s