MORAL AND EPISTEMIC LUCK

Abstract: It is maintained that the arguments put forward by Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel in their widely influential exchange on the problem of moral luck are marred by a failure to (i) present a coherent understanding of what is involved in the notion of luck, and (ii) adequately distinguish between the problem of moral luck and the analogue problem of epistemic luck, especially that version of the problem that is traditionally presented by the epistemological sceptic. It is further claimed that once one offers a more developed notion of luck and disambiguates the problem of moral luck from the problem of epistemic luck (especially in its sceptical guise), neither of these papers is able to offer unambiguous grounds for thinking that there is a problem of moral luck. Indeed, it is shown that in so far as these papers succeed in making a prima facie case for the existence of epistemic luck, it is only the familiar sceptical variant of this problem that they identify.     

Equality: Putting the Theory into Action

We outline our central reasons for pursuing the project of equality studies and some of the thinking we have done within an equality studies framework. We try to show that a multi-dimensional conceptual framework, applied to a set of key social contexts and articulating the concerns of subordinate social groups, can be a fruitful way of putting the idea of equality into practice. Finally, we address some central questions about how to bring about egalitarian social change. Editors’ note. John Baker et al’s article below condenses the key themes and arguments of their book, Equality: From Theory to Action. In the next issue of Res Publica, four writers will respond to these arguments, and there will be a reply from the book’s authors. We are grateful to Jurgen De Wispelaere for organising the original workshop on which the article and replies are based, and for his work in putting together this symposium.     

Luck as Risk and the Lack of Control Account of Luck

This essay explains the notion of luck in terms of risk. It starts by distinguishing two senses of risk, the risk that an event has of occurring and the risk at which an agent is with respect to an event. It cashes out the former in modal terms (rather than probabilistic) and the latter in terms of lack of control. It then argues that the presence or absence of event‐relative risk marks a distinction between two types of luck or fortune commonly overlooked in ordinary usage of the terms “luck” and “fortune.” After offering a detailed account of the notion of control, the essay advances a new version of the so‐called lack of control account of luck: lucky events are events with respect to which one is at risk and hence events over which one lacks control in the specified way. Finally, it argues that its account steers clear of counterexamples to the lack of control account of luck.     

Luck egalitarians versus relational egalitarians: on the prospects of a pluralist account of egalitarian justice

Pluralist egalitarians think that luck and relational egalitarianism each articulates a component in a pluralist account of egalitarian justice. However, this ecumenical view appears problematic in the light of Elizabeth Anderson's claim that the divide arises because two incompatible views of justification are in play, which in turn generates derivative disagreements – e.g. about the proper currency of egalitarian justice. In support of pluralist egalitarianism I argue that two of Anderson's derivative disagreements are not rooted in the disagreement over justification she identifies, and that the disagreement over justification cuts across standard disagreements between luck and relational egalitarian justice.     

On the Concept of Fair Competition Prevalent in Today’s European Soccer Leagues

The notion of competition depicted in sport literature appears to be inconsistent with the goals of current European soccer competitions. This paper examines two misconceptions of fair competition which are prevalent in these competitions. First, it aims at refuting the view that professional soccer only requires some basic equality of chances beyond the differences in players’ skills and managers’ knowledge of game strategy. In other words, it refutes the view that professional soccer only demands a notion of fair competition understood as fair play. Second, the paper also aims at refuting the view that fair competition, in professional soccer, is simply a matter of financial viability. Hence, it calls for both genuine legal and ethical reforms, since professional soccer competition requires a notion of equality as both a goal and a right. Such a notion, we argue, must conceive of the differences in players’ skills and managers’ knowledge of game strategy as one of the primary factors in establishing a platform founded in fair competition. Therefore, this paper calls for a radical change of attitude toward or a radical approach to fair competition among European sport fans, policy-makers, and administrators.     

Gender‐role egalitarianism predicts desirable traits of potential marriage partners: A cross‐cultural comparison

We examined whether gender‐role egalitarianism predicted participants' rank‐order preferences for traits in potential marriage partners of the opposite sex, and whether gender‐role egalitarianism mediated cultural differences between participants from North America, Polynesia and East Asia. Participants completed the Sex‐Role Egalitarianism Scale and ranked the following traits in terms of their importance in choosing a potential marriage partner: kindness, physical attractiveness, social level, athleticism, creativity and liveliness. Parallel analyses for male and female participants reveal that traditional males value physical attractiveness more than egalitarian males, and that traditional females value social level more and kindness less than egalitarian females. Gender‐role egalitarianism fully mediated the effect of culture on kindness rankings, but no others. These results expand upon previous findings by accounting for individual differences regarding beliefs about traditional gender roles.     

Subject‐Involving Luck

In recent years, philosophers have tended to think of luck as being a relation between an event (taken in the broadest sense of the term) and a subject; to give an account of luck is to fill in the right‐hand side of the following biconditional: an event e is lucky for a subject S if and only if ____. We can call such accounts of luck subject‐relative accounts of luck, since they attempt to spell out what it is for an event to be lucky relative to a subject. This essay argues that we should understand subject‐relative luck as a secondary phenomenon. What is of philosophical interest is giving an account of subject‐involving luck, i.e., filling in the right‐hand side of this biconditional: it is a matter of luck that S ?s iff ____. The essay argues that one of the upshots of focusing on subject‐involving luck is that lack of control accounts of luck (LCALs) become more attractive. In particular, a range of counterexamples to LCALs of subject‐relative luck do not apply to LCALs of subject‐involving luck.     

In defence of global egalitarianism

This essay argues that David Miller's criticisms of global egalitarianism do not undermine the view where it is stated in one of its stronger, luck egalitarian forms. The claim that global egalitarianism cannot specify a metric of justice which is broad enough to exclude spurious claims for redistribution, but precise enough to appropriately value different kinds of advantage, implicitly assumes that cultural understandings are the only legitimate way of identifying what counts as advantage. But that is an assumption always or almost always rejected by global egalitarianism. The claim that global egalitarianism demands either too little redistribution, leaving the unborn and dissenters burdened with their societies' imprudent choices, or too much redistribution, creating perverse incentives by punishing prudent decisions, only presents a problem for global luck egalitarianism on the assumption that nations can legitimately inherit assets from earlier generations – again, an assumption very much at odds with global egalitarian assumptions.     

Internal reasons and practical limits on rational deliberation

I argue that agent-causal libertarianism has a strong initial rejoinder to Mele's luck argument against it, but that his claim that it has yet to be explained how agent-causation yields responsibility-conferring control has significant force. I suggest an avenue of response. Subsequently, I raise objections to Mele's criticisms of my four-case manipulation argument against compatibilism.     

Level and Inequality of Happiness in Nations: Does Greater Happiness of a Greater Number Imply Greater Inequality in Happiness?

Utilitarians and egalitarians have different priorities. Utilitarians prioritize the greatest level of happiness in society and are prepared to accept inequality, while egalitarians prioritize the smallest differences and are willing to accept a loss of happiness for this purpose. In theory these moral tenets conflict, but do they really clash in practice? This question is answered in two steps. First I consider the relation between level and inequality of happiness in nations; level of happiness is measured using average responses to a survey question on life satisfaction and inequality is measured with the standard deviation. There appears to be a strong negative correlation; in nations where average happiness is high, the standard deviation tends to be low. This indicates harmony instead of tension. Secondly I consider the institutional factors that are likely to affect happiness. It appears that level and equality of happiness depend largely on the same institutional context, which is another indication for harmony. We may conclude that the discussion between utilitarians and egalitarians is of little practical importance. This conclusion implies that increasing income inequality can go together with decreasing inequality in happiness and this conclusion provides moral support for Governments developing modern market economics