抄録
This paper attempts to clarify the ways in which recent egalitarians have differentiated themselves by examining their core idea to neutralize the influence of different kinds of luck in distributive justice. The paper first highlights the ways in which both resourcist and welfarist egalitarians have accepted the idea of neutralizing the influence of luck in reference to the arguments of Ronald Dworkin and Richard Arneson until 1990's. Second, the paper focuses on the way in which Elizabeth Anderson criticized both of these egalitarian formulations under the labeling of “luck egalitarianism”. Finally, this paper examines the different ways in which both resourcist and welfarist responded to the objections of Anderson in reference to the recent development of Dworkin's insurance schemes and Arneson's responsibility-catering prioritarianism. The paper concludes that the idea of neutralizing the influence of luck still plays an important role in egalitarian theory today, although some important revisions are indispensable to provide for the possible objections.
