Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- fairness (3) (remove)
Much of the recent philosophical literature about distributive justice and equality in the domestic context has been dominated by a family of theories now often called ‘luck egalitarianism’, according to which it is unfair if some people are worse off than others through no choice or fault of their own. This principle has also found its way into the literature about global justice. This paper explores some difficulties that this principle faces: it is largely insensitive to the causes of global inequality, and it is so demanding that it can only give rise to weak moral claims. I go on to argue that a) understanding justice claims as merely weak claims rests on an implausible and impractical concept of justice, and b) using the global luck egalitarian argument in practical discourse is likely to lead to misunderstanding, and to be counterproductive if the aim is to tackle global inequality. While these considerations do not suffice to make a conclusive case against the luck egalitarian principle, they should be acknowledged by global luck egalitarians – as some similar problems have indeed been by domestic luck egalitarians – and need to be addressed.
The paper broaches the issue of unfair trading practices (UTPs) at the expense of, economically spoken, weaker actors among the food supply chain in context of the EU. For illustrating the concept of UTPs and delivering a theoretical basis for scrutinizing the term of fairness in respective trading practices the paper suggests the three variables 1) bargaining power, 2) market power/anti competitive practices and 3) unequal gain distribution. Subsequently the article presents selected national food-specific legislative based reactions towards UTPs evolved in context of the three variables. Ultimately the paper presents a qualitatively generated hypothesis which presumes that legislative food-specific measurements focussing on protecting suppliers lead to a beneficial monetary share for farmers, by means of influencing the producer price to a monetarily advantageous extent. The hypothesis was generated unprejudiced in the run-up to the paper. The research design which led to the hypothesis mentioned will be presented.
Shallow meritocracy
(2023)
Meritocracies aspire to reward hard work and promise not to judge individuals by the circumstances into which they were born. However, circumstances often shape the choice to work hard. I show that people's merit judgments are "shallow" and insensitive to this effect. They hold others responsible for their choices, even if these choices have been shaped by unequal circumstances. In an experiment, US participants judge how much money workers deserve for the effort they exert. Unequal circumstances disadvantage some workers and discourage them from working hard. Nonetheless, participants reward the effort of disadvantaged and advantaged workers identically, regardless of the circumstances under which choices are made. For some participants, this reflects their fundamental view regarding fair rewards. For others, the neglect results from the uncertain counterfactual. They understand that circumstances shape choices but do not correct for this because the counterfactual—what would have happened under equal circumstances—remains uncertain.