John Oberdiek, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Luck egalitarianism represents a dominant position in current debates over distributive justice, and what makes the position so unique is how seriously it takes personal responsibility. In this respect, luck egalitarian theories of distributive justice share much in common with theories of tort law. But this is unfortunate. The conception of responsibility at the heart of luck egalitarianism, while well-suited to tort law, is poorly suited to distributive justice -- considering specific cases helps affirm this. Rejecting luck egalitarianism, I very briefly sketch an alternative position in the distributive justice debate that makes no use of luck egalitarianism's conception of responsibility.