Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Luck egalitarianism's foundational premise—that unequal o... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Relational equality and luck egalitarianism need not be opposed and can both be affirmed simultaneously.

    Luck egalitarianism's foundational premise—that unequal outcomes require justification by choice—presupposes an individualist metaphysics incompatible with relational equality's social ontology.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Luck egalitarianism treats individuals as atomistic units whose outcomes depend on discrete choices, ignoring how social relations constitute personal agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relational equality prioritizes how people stand to each other; this requires examining structural interdependence, not isolating individual responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By focusing on justifying inequality through choice, luck egalitarianism obscures how social hierarchies shape what choices are available to whom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Choice-responsibility distinctions don't logically require atomistic metaphysics; relational contexts can frame when choices should ground unequal outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relational equality's social ontology itself presupposes individuals capable of standing in relations—a form of individualism it claims to reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without some principled way to distinguish lucky from chosen outcomes, relational equality cannot explain why any inequality needs justification at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Individualist metaphysics(as used in philosophy of society and ontology)
    A philosophical view that sees society as basically made up of separate individuals with their own independent choices, rather than seeing people as deeply connected to each other.
    Ontology(Carnap argues this enterprise is based on a mistake)
    The philosophical discipline that tries to answer hard questions about what there really is.
    Social ontology(as used in metaphysics and social philosophy)
    The philosophical study of what social things actually are—like whether society, groups, or institutions are real things that exist independently.
    foundational premise(logic/epistemology)
    A basic assumption or starting point that everything else in an argument depends on.
    incompatible(as used to describe conflicting demands or responsibilities)
    Unable to exist or work together at the same time; conflicting with each other.
    luck egalitarianism(Term introduced by Elizabeth Anderson; also known as the level playing field ideal)
    The view that justice requires eliminating inequalities that are unchosen and uncourted, while permitting inequalities that result from individual choices made under equal initial conditions and a fair framework for interaction
    metaphysics(Hartshorne's naturalistic redefinition of metaphysics)
    On Hartshorne's view, the study not of realities beyond the physical, but of features of reality that are ubiquitous or that would exist in any possible world.
    relational equality(Viehoff's egalitarian conception of democratic authority)
    An ideal of equality among persons understood in terms of their standing and power relative to one another in relationships, threatened by subjection.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    By focusing on justifying inequality through choice, luck egalitarianism obscure...Choice-responsibility distinctions don't logically require atomistic metaphysics...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Luck egalitarianism treats individuals as atomistic units whose outcomes depend ...
    Relational equality and luck egalitarianism need not be opposed and can both be ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Relational equality prioritizes how people stand to each other; this requires ex...Relational equality's social ontology itself presupposes individuals capable of ...Without some principled way to distinguish lucky from chosen outcomes, relationa...