Holding individuals responsible for outcomes they lack genuine capacity to avoid violates the luck egalitarian condition, defended by G.A. Cohen, that only brute luck inequalities rather than option luck warrant redistributive correction.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

G.A. Cohen(the subject of the debate being referenced): A British philosopher (1941-2009) who wrote about fairness and justice, and was famous for challenging and improving upon other philosophers' ideas about equality.
Genuine capacity(as the condition necessary for holding someone responsible): The actual ability to do something or avoid doing it; what someone is truly capable of, given their circumstances and limitations.
Luck egalitarian / Luck egalitarianism(as the main philosophical framework being discussed): A theory of fairness that says inequalities caused by bad luck (things outside your control) should be fixed by society, but inequalities caused by your own choices shouldn't necessarily be.
Redistributive correction(as the policy approach being evaluated): When society transfers resources (through taxes, welfare, or other means) to make outcomes more equal among people.

Based on where you are in your exploration