Mistakes and the continuity test

Lazenby, H. (2016) Mistakes and the continuity test. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 15(2), pp. 190-205. (doi: 10.1177/1470594X15573462)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

In a series of recent articles, Matthew Clayton, Andrew Williams and Rasmus Sommer Hansen and Soren Flinch Midtgaard argue that a key virtue of Ronald Dworkin’s account of distributive justice, Equality of Resources, is that it provides a distribution that is continuous with the evaluations of the individuals whom it ranges over. The idea of continuity, or as Williams calls it the ‘continuity test’, limits distributive claims in at least one important way: one person cannot claim compensation from another when she does not believe she is worse off than him. In this article, I challenge whether an account of distributive justice should be continuous with the evaluations of the individuals whom it ranges over. My argument is that continuity competes with another consideration, namely, correctness. An account of distributive justice should track who actually is and is not disadvantaged, not whether individuals believe they are disadvantaged. In addition, I offer an account of how we can get closer to a correct account of who is disadvantaged based on two sources of evidence the opinions of experts and the opinions of the general public.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Lazenby, Dr Hugh
Authors: Lazenby, H.
College/School:College of Arts & Humanities > School of Humanities > Philosophy
Journal Name:Politics, Philosophy and Economics
Publisher:Sage Publications
ISSN:1470-594X
ISSN (Online):1741-3060
Published Online:23 March 2015

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record