Luck Egalitarianism and Climate Justice – Study Notes

Luck egalitarianism and climate justice

Egalitarianism

  • Egalitarianism: The notion that people are equal, and that equality in some sense is essential to justice.

Equality of what?

  • Question: Equality of what should justice aim for?

    • Formal equality of opportunity

    • Fair equality of opportunity

    • Resources

    • Welfare

  • Central question: How should society balance its responsibility for equality with individuals’ responsibility for their choices?

Brute luck vs option luck

  • Brute luck: circumstances beyond a person’s control that affect life outcomes

  • Option luck: consequences of voluntary choices

  • Principles:

    • People should be compensated for brute luck (mere circumstances, not part of one’s identity as an agent)

    • People should not be compensated for option luck (outcomes based on voluntary choices)

  • Examples:

    • Brain tumour requiring health care (brute luck) vs losing money gambling online (option luck)

Luck egalitarianism: core stance

  • Core claim: Nobody should be richer than anyone else on the basis of luck (e.g., luck in birth, health, talents) – this is the egalitarian part

  • But inequality based on choices one makes can be acceptable – this is the permissive part for inequality

Arneson’s view

  • What matters is the choices you have made voluntarily, or negligently in a way you can be held responsible for

    • You can develop expensive tastes by choice

    • You can squander an important resource negligently

  • Conclusion: What matters are bad choices; everyone deserves equal opportunity for welfare, but nobody deserves compensation for bad choices

Criticism: Relational equality (Scheffler and Anderson)

  • Relational equality focuses on how we treat each other in a democracy, not just resources or welfare

  • Key points:

    • What matters is treatment as equals in a democratic society; individual differences matter less for social/political purposes

    • Extreme income gaps might be problematic; very small gaps might be acceptable

    • Education, health care, etc., are necessary to ensure everyone can participate on equal terms in democracy

    • It does not matter whether differences arise from luck or choice

The role of equality

  • Purpose of equality: to create a society where we treat each other as equals in a democracy

  • Significant inequality threatens this ideal, regardless of whether it stems from luck or choice

  • Examples illustrating the point:

    • Letting someone starve due to gambling away money is harsh and uncaring

    • Letting someone bleed to death after an accident due to lack of health insurance is likewise unacceptable

Luck egalitarianism and equal concern

  • Critique: Luck egalitarianism fails to treat people with equal concern and respect in several ways:
    1) It can render some people socially and politically inferior because the fault lies with them ("it was their own fault").
    2) It suggests some people have a claim on others’ resources due to perceived inferiority in talents or personal characteristics (e.g., being "stupid" or "talent-less").
    3) It leads to intrusive and demeaning judgments about people’s personalities, choices, and capacity to take responsibility for those choices.

Abandons risk takers and vulnerable groups

  • It neglects:

    • Negligent individuals (e.g., someone gravely injured in a car crash without health insurance)

    • Prudent individuals who take reasonable risks that don’t pay out (e.g., building in earthquake-prone areas, flood-prone areas, or fire-prone regions)

    • People in risky jobs (firefighters, police, farmers, ship crews, soldiers)

    • Those who stay at home to care for sick or severely disabled family members (often women, increasing poverty and vulnerability)

    • The idea that if women don’t want to face poverty and vulnerability, they shouldn’t have children

  • Once someone has lost everything, they can be exploited by others in sweatshops or debt bondage

Insults those “deserving” help

  • A distribution that rewards people deemed inferior (e.g., too stupid, ugly, or without talents) would imply:

    • You made a bad choice, but you’re deemed too stupid to recognize it

    • Humiliation of having to prove one’s inferiority to access state support, and to have that on public record

  • Result: Resources are received because one is deemed inferior, not because of equality; fosters a "whining victim’s mentality" rather than solidarity

Economic inequality and its political relevance

  • Luck egalitarians care about economic equality

  • Relational egalitarians arguably downplay economic inequality, or at least treat it differently

    • Anderson appears closer to a sufficientarian stance on some issues

    • Scheffler’s position is less explicit on how strongly they tie inequality to relational aims

Should care about economic inequality? intrinsic vs instrumental reasons

  • Schemmel (author referenced in the slides) argues they should care:

    • Intrinsic reason: distributive equality as the default reflects people’s equal standing

    • Instrumental reasons:

    • Large economic inequality enables people to buy power and dominate others

    • Social norms about status grant higher status to the rich (either openly or by enabling talents required for high-status positions)

  • Conclusion: Economic equality remains important, tying back to the relational and democratic aims of equality