The Politics of Difference
reading notes
Lecture 5
1) “What’s the Point of Equality?”, Anderson, E. (1999).
In this piece, the author critiques recent academic egalitarian thought, arguing that it
leaves itself open to conservative criticisms and fails to address the concerns of
marginalized groups. They highlight various proposals by egalitarian theorists, such
as Ronald Dworkin and Philippe Van Parijs, which could be seen as supporting envy,
laziness, and intrusion into personal life. The author suggests that recent egalitarian
writing is detached from existing political movements and focuses too narrowly on
redistributive justice.
The author proposes an alternative conception of equality, which they term
"democratic equality." This approach aims to create a community of equals by
integrating principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect.
Democratic equality ensures all citizens have effective access to the social conditions
of freedom, justifying distributions based on democratic obligations rather than
inferiority or envy. It avoids intrusive judgments of individuals' capacities and
responsibilities, instead emphasizing personal responsibility within a framework of
collective provision.
JUSTICE AS EQUALITY OF FORTUNE
- The passage provides a critique of the concept of justice referred to as
"equality of fortune" or "luck egalitarianism," which is endorsed by various
prominent theorists. This conception posits that society should compensate
individuals for undeserved misfortunes by redistributing the gains of the lucky
to the unlucky. Proponents argue that this approach is humanitarian, as it
addresses the arbitrary nature of luck in people's lives.
- Luck egalitarians respond to conservative objections to equality by proposing
various principles, such as equality of opportunity for welfare or equal access
to advantage. They aim to reconcile the pursuit of equality with the virtues of
markets and individual responsibility. However, they face challenges in
determining the appropriate space for equality and defining the objects of
egalitarian concern, such as resources or welfare.
, - The passage outlines disagreements among luck egalitarians regarding whether
equality should be based on resources or welfare. Resource egalitarians argue
that equality should be measured by the distribution of external resources,
while welfare egalitarians prioritize individuals' subjective preferences. Despite
these differences, both camps agree that an envy-free distribution of resources
reflects equality.
- The author intends to demonstrate the flaws in luck egalitarianism by
presenting counterexamples that illustrate how it can lead to injustice. They
argue that while different versions of equality of fortune may vary in their
details, they all share fundamental flaws that undermine the concept of justice.
THE VICTIMS OF BAD OPTION LUCK
Detailed critique of luck egalitarianism, particularly focusing on Ronald Dworkin's
formulation of equal respect and concern for citizens. It argues that luck
egalitarianism fails to uphold equal respect and concern in various scenarios, such as
neglecting victims of bad option luck or coming to the aid of victims of bad brute
luck. The critique highlights several problems with luck egalitarianism, including:
1. Abandonment of Negligent Victims: Luck egalitarians argue that individuals
who voluntarily take risks should bear the consequences, even if it leads to
severe outcomes like denial of medical care or disability. This approach is
criticized for lacking equal respect and concern for all citizens, as it leaves
individuals in dire situations without assistance.
2. Discrimination Among the Disabled: The text points out that luck
egalitarianism may lead to discrimination among disabled individuals based on
the circumstances of their disability. For example, it suggests that society may
justify providing assistance to certain disabled individuals while denying it to
others based on the cause of their disability.
3. Geographical Discrimination Among Citizens: Luck egalitarianism may also
lead to geographical discrimination, where individuals residing in high-risk
areas are denied disaster relief or other forms of assistance based on their
choice of location.
4. Occupational Discrimination: Certain occupations with inherent risks, such as
police officers or firefighters, may not receive assistance under luck egalitarian
principles if they suffer harm as a result of their choices. This approach is
criticized for failing to provide equal concern for individuals in dangerous
occupations.
, 5. Vulnerability of Dependent Caretakers: Luck egalitarianism may fail to address
the financial vulnerability of dependent caretakers, particularly women, who
may face poverty and exploitation due to their caregiving responsibilities. This
criticism suggests that luck egalitarian principles do not adequately address the
needs of dependent caretakers.
6. Paternalism: The text argues that luck egalitarianism may resort to paternalistic
interventions to protect individuals from the consequences of their choices,
which can undermine personal responsibility and self-respect.
Overall, the critique suggests that luck egalitarianism, while aiming for equal respect
and concern for citizens, may fall short in practice and fail to address various forms
of inequality and injustice. It calls for a re-evaluation of egalitarian theories to ensure
they uphold the principles of equal respect and concern for all citizens.
THE VICTIMS OF BAD BRUTE LUCK
"Equality of fortune" is a specific interpretation within luck egalitarianism that argues
for compensating individuals for their disadvantages, whether they are born with
them or acquire them later in life due to factors beyond their control.
Key points:
1. Victims of bad brute luck: Luck egalitarians, including proponents of equality of
fortune like Van Parijs, argue for compensating individuals who suffer from genetic
or congenital handicaps, disabilities due to neglect or illness, or accidents for which
they are not responsible. This includes those with little native talent, unconventional
tastes, or chronically depressed states.
2. Determining compensation: The text discusses various criteria proposed for
determining who should be compensated for their disadvantages, such as those who
would have purchased insurance against their condition behind a veil of ignorance or
the principle of undominated diversity, which aims to determine if someone's
disadvantages are significant enough to warrant compensation.
3. Criticism of compensation criteria: Criticisms are raised against proposed criteria
for compensation, including discrimination between rare and common disabilities,
overlooking subjective preferences, and the problem of expensive tastes.
4. Expressive and ethical concerns: The text raises concerns about the messages
conveyed by the distribution of aid, arguing that it may be demeaning or disrespectful
, to those receiving aid. It questions whether compensation based on perceived
inferiority or disadvantage is compatible with principles of equal respect and dignity.
5. Distinction between compassion and pity: The text distinguishes between
humanitarian compassion, which aims to relieve suffering, and pity, which involves
comparing oneself to others and may lead to condescension. It argues that equality of
fortune may evoke pity rather than genuine compassion, leading to unequal treatment
and disrespectful attitudes.
6. Envy and resentment: The text suggests that luck egalitarianism may foster
feelings of envy among those who are not beneficiaries of aid, leading to resentment
and further social division.
7. Overall critique: The excerpt concludes by arguing that luck egalitarianism,
particularly in its equality of fortune form, fails to adequately address concerns of
justice and respect, both for those receiving aid and those who are not.
THE ILLS OF LUCK EGALITARIANISM: A DIAGNOSIS
A critique of the concept of "equality of fortune" within luck egalitarianism, which
aims to combine elements of capitalism and socialism to address inequalities.
Key points:
1. Hybrid institutional scheme: Equality of fortune combines free markets for
goods attributed to individual responsibility with a welfare state for goods
attributed to factors beyond individual control. While it aims to merge the
efficiency and freedom of choice of capitalism with the fairness and protection
against bad luck of socialism, the text argues that it may end up embodying the
worst aspects of both systems.
2. Critique of market reliance: The excerpt suggests that equality of fortune fails
to provide an adequate safety net for those affected by bad option luck. It
argues that the focus on correcting natural inequalities neglects the role of
institutional arrangements in generating opportunities over time.
3. Issues with using market decisions: The text criticizes the use of market prices
and hypothetical market choices to guide state allocations. It argues that market
prices may not accurately reflect individuals' needs for compensation, and
hypothetical market choices do not necessarily correspond to what citizens
collectively owe each other.
4. Problems with socialist principles: Equality of fortune requires the state to
make judgments of moral desert or responsibility, interfering with privacy and
