The Library
On the contribution of ex ante equality to ex post fairness
Tools
Hyams, Keith D. (2017) On the contribution of ex ante equality to ex post fairness. In: Sobel, David and Vallentyne, Peter and Wall, Steven, 1967-, (eds.) Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy. Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, 3 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198801221
PDF
WRAP_1374742-pais-150416-ex_ante_ex_post_hyams_postprint.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (244Kb) |
Official URL: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-stu...
Abstract
When distributing an indivisible harm or benefit between multiple individuals, all of whom have an equal claim to avoid the harm or receive the benefit, it is commonly thought that one should hold a lottery in order to give each claimant an equal chance of winning. Moreover, it is often said that, by holding a lottery, one makes the resultant outcome inequality between those who receive the harm or benefit and those who do not less unfair than it would otherwise have been. The stated view – the ‘egalitarian mixed view’ – claims that the
unfairness of a brute luck ex post distribution is a function of both the degree of inequality in the ex post distribution itself, and the degree of inequality in the ex ante distribution of chances from which it is derived. Versions of the view have been prominently endorsed by a
number of authors, including Arneson, Broome, Diamond, Lang, Otsuka, Parfit, and Temkin.
The appeal of the view is linked to its apparent promise to accommodate intuitions that have been thought to threaten views which link the fairness of an outcome either solely to the ex
ante distribution or solely to the ex post distribution. I argue, to the contrary, that the egalitarian mixed view is mistaken. In particular, I argue that the distinction at the heart of the view – that between outcomes and changes to probabilities – is morally arbitrary at best
and incoherent at worst. I consider possible responses to the charge and find them wanting. I note that the failure of the egalitarian mixed view has significant consequences for policy, including most importantly for how we should interpret the goal of fair equality of opportunity.
Item Type: | Book Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General) J Political Science > JC Political theory |
||||||
Divisions: | Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies | ||||||
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Equality, Fairness | ||||||
Series Name: | Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy | ||||||
Journal or Publication Title: | Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy | ||||||
Publisher: | Oxford University Press | ||||||
Place of Publication: | Oxford | ||||||
ISBN: | 9780198801221 | ||||||
Book Title: | Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy | ||||||
Editor: | Sobel, David and Vallentyne, Peter and Wall, Steven, 1967- | ||||||
Official Date: | 6 July 2017 | ||||||
Dates: |
|
||||||
Volume: | 3 | ||||||
Number of Pages: | 304 | ||||||
Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||
Publication Status: | Published | ||||||
Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access | ||||||
Date of first compliant deposit: | 22 April 2016 | ||||||
Funder: | Public Health England | ||||||
Related URLs: |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
View Item |