Each of the following is a premise of luck egalitarianism EXCEPT:1)  everyone should have equal compensation to advantaged positions, regardless of their backgrounds.2)  outcomes, resulting from choices and circumstances, should not be treated the same in a just society.3)  equal opportunity advocates for an equal start, but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone will have an equal finish.4)  those who face negative outcomes due to their own choices shouldn't necessarily be bailed out by society

Each of the following is a criticism of luck egalitarianism that the passage suggests EXCEPT:1)  luck egalitarianism, on its own, may lack a comprehensive approach to justice.2)  luck egalitarianism is too harsh when it comes to the self-inflicted needs of individuals.3)  strict adherence to luck egalitarianism can lead to a lack of solutions to option luck.4)  it's challenging to clearly differentiate between what is a choice and what is a mere circumstance.

Which one of the following, if true, most support the principle of luck egalitarianism?1)  Philosophies rooted in personal choice tend to disregard the importance of societal structures in shaping outcomes, thereby undermining justice.2)  Distinguishing between factors within one's control and those outside it can highlight foundational tenets of justice-oriented philosophies.3)  When a philosophy emphasizes personal agency, it typically implies that a person necessarily exhibits behaviours most aligned with their choices.4)  Philosophical systems prioritizing personal responsibility often aim, but not always succeed, in producing uniform societal outcomes.

Each one of the following inequalities would be considered just by luck egalitarianism EXCEPT:1)  entrepreneurs who invest more time and effort into their ventures earn a higher profit than those who don't in the same market conditions.2)  professional athletes who consistently train harder and perform better secure more endorsements than their less committed peers.3)  authors who spend years researching and writing quality books receive more royalties compared to those who quickly produce low-quality work.4)  students who attend extra classes by choice due to opportunity and score better in exams get admission to top-tier universities, while others don't.

Equal opportunity, also called equality of opportunity, in political theory is the idea that people ought to be able to compete on equal terms, or on a “level playing field,” for advantaged offices and positions. Proponents of equal opportunity believe that the principle is compatible with, and indeed may justify, inequalities of outcome of some sort. . .The ideal of equal opportunity does not necessarily lead to equality of outcome since its aim is consistent with allowing people’s life prospects to be influenced by their values and choices. From that standpoint, the underlying motivation of the ideal of equal opportunity, properly understood, is to counteract the effects of people’s different natural and social circumstances while permitting inequalities of condition that emerge as a result of their choices. On that basis, some scholars have argued that inequalities arising from differences in choice are not only just but necessary, to give personal responsibility its due. That view is sometimes described as luck egalitarianism.Luck egalitarianism maintains that, while inequalities are unjust if they derive from differences in people’s circumstances—because circumstances are a matter of brute luck—they are just if they are the product of people’s voluntary choices. Luck egalitarianism is thus a combination of two different claims: first, that justice requires the neutralization of the effects of differences in people’s circumstances, and, second, that it is just to require people to bear the costs, or allow them to enjoy the benefits, of their voluntary choices. In making those claims, luck egalitarianism invokes a distinction between choice and circumstance, or between brute luck and “option luck.”Luck egalitarianism has its critics, however. Given the social forces to which each person is subject, the distinction between choice and circumstance, or between brute luck and option luck, is not always easy to draw in a plausible way. But even if a satisfactory way of drawing those distinctions could be found, there is still the worry that luck egalitarianism is too harsh in the way that it holds people responsible for their foolish or reckless behaviour. It seems to imply that those who end up needy as a result of their own imprudence can justly be forced to bear the costs of their choices. So, people who choose to smoke with full knowledge of the risks involved and develop lung cancer may have no entitlement to the health care that they need but cannot afford. Uncompromising luck egalitarians may insist that they have no objection to voluntary schemes to help those with self-inflicted needs but that they regard the forcible extraction of taxes to help those who are responsible for their plight as sanctioning the exploitation of the prudent. Others, however, may concede that luck egalitarianism should be supplemented with a further principle of justice, such as, for example, a principle holding that the needy—that is, those whose condition falls below some threshold—are entitled to support regardless of how their needs arose.

Equality of opportunity means to give every individual a fair chance at achieving success if they are talented and hardworking.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse