Defending Luck Egalitarianism

abstract    This article defends luck egalitarianism as an interpretation of the egalitarian ideal against two major criticisms levelled against it by Elizabeth Anderson — that it is trapped in the distributive paradigm, and that it treats the victims of bad option luck too harshly to be considered an egalitarian theory. Against the first criticism, I argue that luck egalitarianism will condemn non-material inequalities and injustices if an appropriate conception of well-being is adopted. I demonstrate this by showing how the approach is sensitive to the five faces of oppression developed by Iris Young. Although the second criticism is more troubling, it does not defeat luck egalitarianism, either. I will show that few of the inequalities that arise in the real world result from option luck. Further, if cases do occur, rather than abandoning the theory, the best response is to combine luck egalitarianism with another egalitarian principle that will ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are satisfied. The paper concludes by defending the appeal of the distinction between option luck and brute luck, in light of the preceding discussion.     

SELF-PRESENTATIONS OF ATTITUDES FOLLOWING COMMITMENT TO PROATTITUDINAL BEHAVIOR

Attitude statements present a particular image of the respondent to onlookers and can be tactically used for self-presentational purposes. The present study investigated the relationship between variables relevant to self-presentation and attitude statements following proattitudinal actions. Under conditions of high or low decision freedom, female subjects committed themselves to argue for a proattitudinal issue. The experimenter described the issue as either low or high in importance, and subsequent attitudes toward the issue were measured in a way which allowed low (subjects did not sign their questionnaires and placed them in a collection box) or high (subjects signed their questionnaires and handed them to the experimenter) personal association with attitude statements. A triple interaction of the variables was found on subjects'statements of personal involvement with the issue. As suggested by a self-presentation approach, subjects expressed more involvement under no-choice/low-association/high-importance conditions than under choice/low-association/high-importance conditions. Subjects who were denied personal responsibility and close association with an important action apparently increased their involvement to gain responsibility. The findings failed to support self-perception predictions of more favorable attitudes under choice rather than no-choice conditions.