Equality is an idea that has broad appeal – most people endorse the principle that we should be equal before the law, and even defenders of the market put their case in terms of equal property rights. But the socialist idea that people should be equal in their material circumstances is more controversial, and recent trends in egalitarian political philosophy, rather than stepping up to defend it, have tended to back away. Christine Sypnowich argued we should eschew the reticence of much left-liberal theories and embrace a radical political philosophy which focuses on what’s really at stake: equal human flourishing. #LSEMiliband
🔴 This event was streamed live on Facebook on 19 May 2022:
https://www.facebook.com/lseps/live
🔴 Find out about more of our upcoming events:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Events
Speaker:
🔴 Professor Christine Sypnowich
Chair:
🔴 Dr Robin Archer
ℹ️ More info:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2022/05/202205191830/ideal
source
The contingent nature of institutional choice
The question of luck in egalitarian thought is the thing I don't think can truly be resolved, despite how much my friend wanted it to be.
Is it hypocrisy to just shrug at luck in fairness?
I kind of think it is, but it isn't something that I think can truly be solved for, since there doesn't seem to be a way to equate different bonuses nor equate different problems. I imagine people trying to distill everything down to money or time in order to solve this, but I'm pretty sure there will always be value judgments involved in that.
In a sense, some of the unfairness to free markets comes down to people making value judgments with their money.
These value judgments are why I don't think a labor theory of value works.
Even if an artist wants to cater their labor to consumer values, luck still plays a huge role.
I have a hard time reconciling artistic integrity vs focusing on the business case, especially if luck were to be eliminated.