Introduction
Elizabeth Anderson claims that “luck egalitarianism or equality of fortune fails the fundamental test of any egalitarian theory meets”.in "What is the point of equality”. In this paper, I would argue that luck egalitarianism, in some degrees however, weaken not only the equality but also the justice. In section one, I will demonstrate what is luck egalitarianism and equality of fortune. To make it more clear, followed explainations on Anderson’s views about the flaw understanding of the point of equality based on luck egalitarianism will be addressed in sextion two. The following Section three describes my arguments against the equality of fortune and luck egalitarianism and section four considers and replies one possible objection …show more content…
For example, homeless people are those people need compensation because they were bad luck being born with poor native endowments. In order to help homeless people, government provide some job opportunities for those homeless people such as washing the dishes. Those positions might be others’. However, government takes away those opportunities from people who might be hired to compensate homeless people because of balance. Does it really show the equality? Obviously not. Equality in opportunity means everyone should enjoy equal opportunities to get hired.
The most important point of equality, from my perspective is that given equal opportunities, the outcome would still be equal. However, luck egalitarianism fails to show equality because it essentially creates a winner and a loser. For example, students who assume to have an equal bundle of resources such as the same textbook, the same test, the same teachers and so forth, study in the same college, but might finally get admitted into different universities. Thus, equal opportunities to have access to equal resources, in this case, may not entail
Elizabeth Anderson claims that “luck egalitarianism or equality of fortune fails the fundamental test of any egalitarian theory meets”.in "What is the point of equality”. In this paper, I would argue that luck egalitarianism, in some degrees however, weaken not only the equality but also the justice. In section one, I will demonstrate what is luck egalitarianism and equality of fortune. To make it more clear, followed explainations on Anderson’s views about the flaw understanding of the point of equality based on luck egalitarianism will be addressed in sextion two. The following Section three describes my arguments against the equality of fortune and luck egalitarianism and section four considers and replies one possible objection …show more content…
For example, homeless people are those people need compensation because they were bad luck being born with poor native endowments. In order to help homeless people, government provide some job opportunities for those homeless people such as washing the dishes. Those positions might be others’. However, government takes away those opportunities from people who might be hired to compensate homeless people because of balance. Does it really show the equality? Obviously not. Equality in opportunity means everyone should enjoy equal opportunities to get hired.
The most important point of equality, from my perspective is that given equal opportunities, the outcome would still be equal. However, luck egalitarianism fails to show equality because it essentially creates a winner and a loser. For example, students who assume to have an equal bundle of resources such as the same textbook, the same test, the same teachers and so forth, study in the same college, but might finally get admitted into different universities. Thus, equal opportunities to have access to equal resources, in this case, may not entail