Anderson, Elizabeth S. “What Is the Point of Equality?” _Ethics_ 109, no. 2 (1999): 287–337. # Progressive Summary Egalitarianism took a wrong turn when it focused on compensating for people's bad luck (luck egalitarianism), which is a result of cosmic forces. It should re-focus on protecting people from oppression, which is a result of social relations. # Key Points Luck egalitarianism does not show equal respect and concern for all citizens for 3 reasons: - It blames them for making poor choices. - It them excludes them from social goods on this basis. - It demeans those at the bottom by suggesting that they live in a state of envy. Luck egalitarianism is promoted by: - Richard Arneson - Gerald Cohen - Ronald Dworkin - Thomas Nagel - Eric Rakowski - John Romer - Philippe Van Parijs It is defined by two theses: - People should be compensated for bad luck. - The compensation should come from those parts of others' good fortune that is undeserved. Luck egalitarians see the welfare state as one big insurance company. The main differences between them is on whether there should be equality of welfare (Arneson, Cohen, Roemer, Nagel), or equality of resources (Dworkin, Rakowsky, Van Parijs). All of them define welfare in terms of the individual's informed preferences. Resource egalitarians object to welfare egalitarianism because some people (eg spoiled brats, hedonists) might have luxurious preferences. Self-controlled people would lose out to the self-indulgent. Welfare egalitarians have 3 responses: - Resources should be valued as a means to an end. The ultimate end is welfare. - People aren't responsible for their preferences. They might have a genetic predisposition to something that, through no fault of their own, suddenly becomes expensive. - To blame someone for having expensive tastes is like blaming a paraplegic for having an expensive preference for mobility compared to an abled person. Resource egalitarians respond that you can't just take the welfare of the claimants into account, because they are taking resources away from others. So you have to establish the utility of those resources to others and throw that into the equation. Which means that resource egalitarians rely on some kind of market mechanism as well. Bad option luck is the outcome of poor choices that an individual makes. Luck egalitarianism does not protect any of the following groups: - women who voluntarily decide to become mothers, therefore becoming financial dependents - people who become disabled as a result of an accident that is their fault - # Resonances # Quotes