Luck vs. Capability? Testing Egalitarian Theories
Luck vs. Capability? Testing Egalitarian Theories
复制标题
运气与能力？
DOI：
10.1007/s13164-019-00432-1
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Daisuke Udagawa & Yoshiki Wakamatsu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Akira Inoue;Kazumi Shimizu;Daisuke Udagawa & Yoshiki Wakamatsu
分配正义问题在社会上受到广泛关注。一方面，我们对人们是否以及在多大程度上应该对生活状况恶化负责很敏感。另一方面，我们关注社会上最贫困的成员。关于运气平等主义和关系平等主义的争论，前者与后者相呼应。本文通过对这两种关注的心理过程的考察，检验了伊丽莎白安德森反对运气平均主义、支持关系平均主义的论点的可靠性。它还考虑是否有可能同时支持运气平等主义和关系平等主义，使用在线实验。实验结果表明：第一，对于普通人来说，运气因素与基本能力因素同等重要。第二，虽然真实的人通过因果关系（选择结果的程度）和责任（对后果的责任程度）因素来考虑赔偿的程度，但基本能力的缺乏引导他们确定厄运受害者应该得到多少赔偿。这表明多元平等主义走在了正确的道路上。
The issue of distributive justice receives substantial amount of attention in our society. On the one hand, we are sensitive to whether and the extent to which people are responsible for being worse off. On the other hand, we are mindful of society’s worst-off members. There has been a debate over luck egalitarianism, which relates to the former concern, and relational egalitarianism, which echoes the latter. By investigating the psychological processes of these two concerns, this paper examines the reliability of the argument that Elizabeth Anderson, a renowned relational egalitarian, presents against luck egalitarianism and for relational egalitarianism. It also considers whether it is possible to support luck egalitarianism and relational egalitarianism simultaneously, using an online experiment. The results of the experiment show that, first, for ordinary people, the luck consideration is as important as the basic capabilities consideration. Second, while real people consider the degree of compensation through the factors of causality (the degree of chosen results) and responsibility (the degree of responsibility for the consequences), the lack of basic capabilities directs them to determine how much victims of bad luck should be compensated. This suggests that pluralist egalitarianism is on the right track.