Accessibility navigation


Can I be a luck egalitarian and a Rawlsian?

Tomlin, P. (2012) Can I be a luck egalitarian and a Rawlsian? Ethical Perspectives, 19 (3). pp. 371-397. ISSN 1370-0049

Full text not archived in this repository.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.2143/EP.19.3.2172296

Abstract/Summary

Luck egalitarianism and Rawlsianism have been presented as competing answers to the same question: the question of distributive justice. In this paper, I show how they are in fact not different theories of the same thing, but rather different theories of different things - different answers to different questions. I trace the history of luck egalitarian thinking and try to show why Rawlsianism and luck egalitarianism were taken to be the same kind of project. I then examine different ways that one could consistently endorse (some version of) luck egalitarianism and (some version of/elements of) Rawls' theory.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Politics, Economics and International Relations > Politics and International Relations
ID Code:26298
Publisher:Peeters

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation