Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate

M Matravers

doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00385

Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate

M Matravers

Politics, Economics and Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	558-572
Number of pages	15
Journal	Political Studies
Volume	50
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00385
Publication status	Published - Aug 2002

Keywords

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Access to Document

10.1111/1467-9248.00385

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00385

Cite this

@article{a5db1d2ad7f4447f9a89590db472019c,

title = "Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate",

abstract = "Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.",

keywords = "MORAL RESPONSIBILITY",

author = "M Matravers",

year = "2002",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1111/1467-9248.00385",

language = "English",

volume = "50",

pages = "558--572",

journal = "Political Studies",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate

AU - Matravers, M

PY - 2002/8

Y1 - 2002/8

N2 - Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.

AB - Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.

KW - MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

U2 - 10.1111/1467-9248.00385

DO - 10.1111/1467-9248.00385

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 558

EP - 572

JO - Political Studies

JF - Political Studies

IS - 3

ER -