Philosophy
Rawlsian Justice as Fairness vs. Luck Egalitarianism
Quick fact
Rawls argues that even our talents and ambitions are morally arbitrary, so society should not let them determine life prospects, whereas luck egalitarians like Ronald Dworkin argue that inequalities resulting from sincere choices are just, even if they disadvantage others.
Why this is interesting
Should a person born with a natural talent for music earn more than someone without it? And what if the talented person simply chose to practice while the other didn't? Two major theories of justice give very different answers.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Rawlsian Justice as Fairness vs. Luck Egalitarianism
Both Rawlsian justice as fairness and luck egalitarianism start from the intuition that the outcomes of the natural lottery are morally arbitrary. Rawls uses the veil of ignorance to design a society where the worst-off are as well off as possible, ignoring individual responsibility. Luck egalitarians, however, refine the intuition by distinguishing between 'brute luck' (unchosen circumstances) and 'option luck' (results of choices). They hold that while brute bad luck calls for compensation, inequalities from chosen risks are acceptable. This makes luck egalitarianism more sensitive to personal responsibility but also more demanding in implementation.
A deeper explanation
Rawls's difference principle says inequalities are just only if they benefit the least advantaged, but he does not penalize individuals for their choices; he treats all outcomes of the social and natural lottery as undeserved. Luck egalitarianism, in contrast, accepts choice-based inequality, so a smoker who gets lung cancer may not deserve the same treatment as someone who got cancer from pollution. The core mechanism is the distinction between circumstances and choices. This leads to different implications for taxation, welfare, and healthcare. Criticisms: luck egalitarianism struggles to define genuine choices, and it may be harsh towards those who make bad decisions, while Rawls is more generous but less attentive to individual agency.