Which statement best captures the difference between Rawlsian justice and luck egalitarianism?
ABoth theories require equalizing resources across all members of society
BRawls deliberately avoided grounding justice in individual responsibility for choices, while luck egalitarianism holds people responsible for option luck but not brute luck
CRawls endorses redistribution based on productivity; luck egalitarianism endorses redistribution based on need
DThey are identical theories that differ only in historical origin
Rawls' difference principle focuses on maximizing the position of the worst-off group without invoking luck or individual choices at all. Luck egalitarians (like G.A. Cohen) explicitly argue that inequalities from brute luck — circumstances beyond one's control — are unjust, while inequalities from option luck (deliberate gambles) may be acceptable. Rawls rejected this luck-responsibility framing as the wrong foundation for justice.
Question 2 True / False
Libertarians such as Nozick reject distributive justice mostly, arguing no theory of distribution can be morally legitimate.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Libertarians do not reject distributive justice per se — they hold an entitlement theory in which distributions are just if they result from just acquisitions and voluntary transfers. Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument illustrates that a patterned redistribution (by need or equality) requires continuous interference with voluntary exchanges. Libertarians endorse a different theory of justice, not the absence of one.
Question 3 Short Answer
What does sufficientarianism claim about distributive justice, and how does it differ from strict egalitarianism?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Sufficientarianism holds that justice requires ensuring everyone has 'enough' — a sufficient threshold of resources or welfare — rather than equalizing shares. Inequalities above the sufficiency threshold are not necessarily unjust. Strict egalitarianism, by contrast, treats any inequality as a problem to be addressed regardless of whether everyone has enough.
Associated with Frankfurt's argument that what matters morally is having enough, not having the same as others. Sufficientarianism avoids the 'leveling-down objection' that pure egalitarianism can satisfy equality by making everyone worse off, as long as the floor is met.