What Is the Point of the Harshness Objection?

Andreas Brøgger Albertsen*, Lasse Nielsen

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    45 Downloads (Pure)


    According to luck egalitarianism, it is unjust if some are worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. The most common criticism of luck egalitarianism is the 'harshness objection', which states that luck egalitarianism allows for too harsh consequences, as it fails to provide justification for why those responsible for their bad fate can be entitled to society's assistance. It has largely gone unnoticed that the harshness objection is open to a number of very different interpretations. We present four different interpretations of the harshness objection in which the problem pertains to counterintuitive implications, badness of outcome, disproportionality, or inconsistency, respectively. We analyse and discuss appropriate luck egalitarian replies. Disentangling these different versions clarifies what is at the heart of this dispute and reveals the point of the harshness objection. We conclude that only the inconsistency version involves a durable problem for luck egalitarianism.

    Original languageEnglish
    Issue number4
    Pages (from-to)427-443
    Publication statusPublished - 2020


    Dive into the research topics of 'What Is the Point of the Harshness Objection?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this