Luck in the Just Society -Sociology of Individual’s Choices and a Justification for Egalitarian Social Policies-

M. Onur Arun

Makale detayları

Luck in the Just Society -Sociology of Individual’s Choices and a Justification for Egalitarian Social Policies-

Yazarlar:

M. Onur Arun

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi | Dezavantajlı Gruplar | Siyaset Sosyolojisi

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 3, pp.751-770

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001299589

pISSN:

2667-8683

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 To what extent can individuals be kept responsible for the disadvantages they experience? This is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental questions that have led to a historical cleavage between egalitarian perspectives that underline roles of structural inequalities leading to disadvantages and anti-egalitarianlibertarian perspectives that tend to keep individuals themselves responsible for their own living conditions. Taking a mediating position between these perspectives, a relatively new normative framework, viz. luck egalitarianism, has recently provided an analytical answer to this question. Building upon an authentic conceptual framework in which two distinct forms of luck are defined, it claims that individuals cannot be kept responsible for their disadvantaged conditions so long as these conditions have appeared as consequences of factors that are beyond their own control, such as luck, which inescapably brings forth a normative idea that individuals should take responsibility of disadvantages that are consequences of their own choicesdecisions. This paper discusses that evaluative aspects of individuals choicesdecisions within the given configuration of luck egalitarianisms analytical framework are excessively ambiguous, which can easily lead it to turn into a perspective morally justifying quite a number of disadvantages. Drawing on various hypothetical cases and empirical findings, it suggests that luck egalitarianism should recognize sociological formation of individuals choicesdecisions in modern stratified societies to overcome such jeopardy. Following this, it addresses two positive implications of such recognition as 1 saving luck egalitarianism from being a means of right-wing exclusionary political positions and 2 opening up a space to incorporate egalitarian social policies.

 To what extent can individuals be kept responsible for the disadvantages they experience? This is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental questions that have led to a historical cleavage between egalitarian perspectives that underline roles of structural inequalities leading to disadvantages and anti-egalitarianlibertarian perspectives that tend to keep individuals themselves responsible for their own living conditions. Taking a mediating position between these perspectives, a relatively new normative framework, viz. luck egalitarianism, has recently provided an analytical answer to this question. Building upon an authentic conceptual framework in which two distinct forms of luck are defined, it claims that individuals cannot be kept responsible for their disadvantaged conditions so long as these conditions have appeared as consequences of factors that are beyond their own control, such as luck, which inescapably brings forth a normative idea that individuals should take responsibility of disadvantages that are consequences of their own choicesdecisions. This paper discusses that evaluative aspects of individuals choicesdecisions within the given configuration of luck egalitarianisms analytical framework are excessively ambiguous, which can easily lead it to turn into a perspective morally justifying quite a number of disadvantages. Drawing on various hypothetical cases and empirical findings, it suggests that luck egalitarianism should recognize sociological formation of individuals choicesdecisions in modern stratified societies to overcome such jeopardy. Following this, it addresses two positive implications of such recognition as 1 saving luck egalitarianism from being a means of right-wing exclusionary political positions and 2 opening up a space to incorporate egalitarian social policies.

 To what extent can individuals be kept responsible for the disadvantages they experience? This is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental questions that have led to a historical cleavage between egalitarian perspectives that underline roles of structural inequalities leading to disadvantages and anti-egalitarianlibertarian perspectives that tend to keep individuals themselves responsible for their own living conditions. Taking a mediating position between these perspectives, a relatively new normative framework, viz. luck egalitarianism, has recently provided an analytical answer to this question. Building upon an authentic conceptual framework in which two distinct forms of luck are defined, it claims that individuals cannot be kept responsible for their disadvantaged conditions so long as these conditions have appeared as consequences of factors that are beyond their own control, such as luck, which inescapably brings forth a normative idea that individuals should take responsibility of disadvantages that are consequences of their own choicesdecisions. This paper discusses that evaluative aspects of individuals choicesdecisions within the given configuration of luck egalitarianisms analytical framework are excessively ambiguous, which can easily lead it to turn into a perspective morally justifying quite a number of disadvantages. Drawing on various hypothetical cases and empirical findings, it suggests that luck egalitarianism should recognize sociological formation of individuals choicesdecisions in modern stratified societies to overcome such jeopardy. Following this, it addresses two positive implications of such recognition as 1 saving luck egalitarianism from being a means of right-wing exclusionary political positions and 2 opening up a space to incorporate egalitarian social policies.

 Dezavantajlı bireyler deneyimledikleri dezavantajlardan ne derece sorumlu tutulabilir? Kuşkusuz bu soru, yapısal eşitsizliklerin dezavantajın oluşumunda oynadığı rollere vurgu yapan eşitlikçi bakış açıları ile bireyleri kendi yaşam koşullarından sorumlu tutan eşitlikçi olmayanliberteryen bakış açıları arasındaki tarihsel kırılmaya yol açan en temel sorulardan biridir. Bu iki bakış açısı arasında uzlaştırıcı bir pozisyon olarak görece yeni ortaya çıkmış olan şans eşitlikçiliği yaklaşımı ise bu soruya analitik bir cevap sunmaktadır. İki farklı şans tanımının yer aldığı özgün bir kavramsal çerçeve üzerine kurulu olan şans eşitlikçiliği, bireylerin kendi kontrolleri dışında gelişen şans gibi etmenlerin sonucunda ortaya çıkan dezavantajlardan sorumlu tutulamayacağını belirtmektedir. Bu bakış açısı, kaçınılmaz olarak, bireylerin kendi seçimlerininkararlarının sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan dezavantajların sorumluluğunu üstlenmeleri gerektiği yönündeki normatif fikri de beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu çalışma, şans eşitlikçiliği yaklaşımının analitik çerçevesinin verili yapısı içinde, birey seçimlerinekararlarına ilişkin değerlendirme unsurlarının oldukça muğlak olduğunu ve bunun da şans eşitlikçiliğinin birçok dezavantajı meşrulaştıran bir bakış açısına dönüşmesine sebep olabileceğini tartışmaktadır. Çeşitli hipotetik örnekler ve kimi görgül verilere dayanarak, şans eşitlikçiliğinin söz konusu riski, katmanlaşmış çağdaş toplumlarda birey seçimlerininkararlarının sosyolojik olarak kurulduğunu kabul ederek aşabileceğini işaret etmektedir. Bunu takiben, böylesi bir kabulün şans eşitlikçiliğinin 1 dışlayıcı sağ siyasal pozisyonlarca araçsallaştırılmasına engel olmak ve 2 eşitlikçi sosyal politikalarla işbirliği kurmasına olanak sağlayan bir alan açması gibi iki olumlu sonucu beraberinde getireceği ifade edilmektedir.

Makale detayları

Luck in the Just Society -Sociology of Individual’s Choices and a Justification for Egalitarian Social Policies-

Yazarlar:

M. Onur Arun

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi | Dezavantajlı Gruplar | Siyaset Sosyolojisi

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 3, pp.751-770

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001299589

pISSN:

2667-8683

Distributive Justice

Luck

Choice

Political Sociology

Social PolicyDağıtıcı Adalet

Şans

Seçim

Siyaset Sosyolojisi

Sosyal Politika

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: M. Onur Arun

Yayıncı: Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar: Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi | Dezavantajlı Gruplar | Siyaset Sosyolojisi

Dergi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 3, pp.751-770

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2023

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001299589

pISSN: 2667-8683

Sayı

Yazarlar:

M. Onur Arun

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi | Dezavantajlı Gruplar | Siyaset Sosyolojisi

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.23 Issue 3, pp.751-770

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001299589

pISSN:

2667-8683