Ethics Explanation Please Answer Each Part

313233343536373839404142434445ethicsexplanationplease Answer Each Pa

ETHICS: EXPLANATION: Please answer each part of your chosen question fully and accurately. You should explain your answer clearly enough so that an intelligent person without any background in philosophy could still understand what you are saying. (This last instruction is important: your task is to convince the reader that you really understand what you are talking about. Try not to leave the reader guessing as to what you mean. It always helps to use examples.) NOTE: Each question is broken down into parts, such part (a), part(b), etc. QUESTION: 1) A) How is luck egalitarianism similar to and different from Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness? B) How is luck egalitarianism similar to and different from Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice? C) How is luck egalitarianism similar to and/or different from Anderson’s theory of democratic equality? LINKS TO READ: How it feels How it feels

Paper For Above instruction

Luck egalitarianism is a theory of justice that emphasizes the importance of correcting inequalities resulting from circumstances beyond an individual's control, such as luck. It posits that inequalities are only justified if they result from personal choices or efforts, rather than external factors. To understand its position in the landscape of political philosophy, it is instructive to compare it with other prominent theories: John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory, and Iris Marion Young’s or Elizabeth Anderson’s ideas on democratic equality.

Luck Egalitarianism and Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness

Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness centers on the idea of fairness in the distribution of social goods, aiming to establish principles that ensure just institutions. Rawls introduces the "original position" and the "veil of ignorance" as a thought experiment, seeking principles that everyone would choose regardless of their social position. His two principles include equal liberties for all and the difference principle, which permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged.

Luck egalitarianism shares with Rawls the concern for fairness and the aim to structure inequalities in a just way. Both theories seek to restrict unjust inequalities; Rawls emphasizes fairness in terms of social cooperation and substantive equal rights, whereas luck egalitarians focus specifically on compensating for unchosen circumstances. However, they diverge in their scope and approach: Rawls' focus is on the framework of justice creating fair opportunities for all from behind a veil of ignorance; luck egalitarianism zeroes in on personal responsibility and rectifying inequalities caused by luck, rather than broad institutional fairness.

An example illustrating this difference is that Rawls might justify certain inequalities if they arise from fair opportunities; luck egalitarians, however, would argue that inequalities caused by unchosen circumstances, such as being born into poverty, must be corrected regardless of opportunities, emphasizing individual responsibility and societal duty to equalize conditions where luck plays a role.

Luck Egalitarianism and Nozick’s Entitlement Theory

Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory advocates for a minimal state and emphasizes the importance of historical justifications for holdings. According to Nozick, as long as holdings were acquired without theft or force and are transferred voluntarily, they are just. This libertarian perspective opposes redistribution aimed at achieving social justice, emphasizing individual rights and property entitlements.

While luck egalitarianism seeks to address inequalities caused by unchosen circumstances, Nozick's framework generally opposes redistribution, regardless of the role of luck. They differ markedly in their policies: luck egalitarians endorse correcting undeserved inequalities, often through redistribution, whereas Nozick advocates for respecting holdings acquired justly, resisting redistribution efforts.

An example contrasting these views would be a situation where an individual inherits wealth—luck egalitarians might argue that wealth acquired through luck should be taxed and redistributed if it results in unearned advantages. In contrast, Nozick would likely defend the legitimacy of such holdings if they were acquired freely and justly, opposing redistribution efforts that interfere with property rights.

Luck Egalitarianism and Anderson’s Theory of Democratic Equality

Elizabeth Anderson’s theory of democratic equality emphasizes social and economic equality rooted in the ideals of participation and equal respect. She criticizes individualistic conceptions of justice and advocates for an approach where social arrangements foster actual equality and participation for all members of society.

Both luck egalitarianism and Anderson’s democratic equality aim to promote fairness and mitigate unjust inequalities. However, Anderson stresses the importance of social practices and democratic participation in achieving equality, emphasizing collective well-being and civic engagement. Luck egalitarianism mainly focuses on individual circumstances and responsibility, seeking to rectify inequalities caused by luck.

A key difference is that Anderson’s approach considers relational and institutional dimensions, emphasizing social inclusion and participation, whereas luck egalitarianism concentrates on compensating for unchosen disparities. For example, Anderson might argue that genuine equality requires dismantling social structures that perpetuate inequality, beyond merely redistributing resources based on luck considerations.

Conclusion

In sum, luck egalitarianism shares certain values with Rawls’ justice as fairness in addressing inequalities and fairness, while diverging in their focus and principles. It contrasts strongly with Nozick’s libertarian view by advocating for redistribution to correct unearned disadvantages. Compared to Anderson’s democratic equality, luck egalitarianism emphasizes individual responsibility and rectification based on luck, whereas Anderson’s theory emphasizes social participation and collective equality. Understanding these differences and similarities highlights the diverse approaches in contemporary theories of justice aimed at achieving fairness and equality within societies.

References

• Cohen, G. A. (2008). Rescuing Justice and Equality. Harvard University Press.
• Dryzek, J. S., & List, C. (2003). Social Democracy and Its Critics. University of Chicago Press.
• Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.
• Hale, H. (2015). Justice as Fairness, the Capabilities Approach, and Democratic Equality. Politics & Philosophy, 43(3), 395-413.
• Kolodny, N. (2011). The Architecture of Distributive Justice. Princeton University Press.
• Nokd, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.