luckegalitarianism

Luckegalitarianism is a family of ethical theories that argue for a society where individuals are not held responsible for the good or bad luck they experience. The core idea is that it is unjust for a person's life prospects to be determined by factors beyond their control, such as natural talents, family background, or inherited wealth. However, luckegalitarians typically distinguish between "brute luck" (unforeseen misfortunes or advantages) and "option luck" (outcomes of choices and voluntary risks). They believe that individuals should be held responsible for the consequences of their choices, even if those choices involve risk.

The primary aim of luckegalitarianism is to level the playing field by compensating those who are disadvantaged by brute luck, while not necessarily penalizing those who make risky choices that turn out poorly. For example, someone born with a severe disability would be entitled to greater social support than someone who is healthy but chooses to engage in extremely dangerous activities. This approach seeks to achieve a form of equality of outcome, but one that is sensitive to the choices individuals make.

Critics of luckegalitarianism raise several concerns. Some argue that it is impractical to distinguish clearly between brute luck and option luck in real-world situations. Others contend that it can lead to an overly intrusive state that constantly intervenes to redistribute resources based on perceived luck. There are also debates about whether luckegalitarianism is compatible with other important values, such as individual liberty and desert. Despite these criticisms, luckegalitarianism remains an influential perspective in contemporary political philosophy, prompting ongoing discussion about justice, responsibility, and the role of luck in shaping human lives.