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.