How should we decide about whom to give access to medical treatment, like transplanting organs? How should study places be allocated as fairly as possible? Should only the strongest men be chosen for military service? When there are sufficient resources to satisfy all potential claimants, the implementation of allocating processes might be simple, but what does distributive justice require when resources are scarce? When should we discriminate between people, i.e. decide on the basis of special considerations, and when is it better to choose randomly? Philosophers have provided different theories of distributive justice and argue in distinct and partly conflicting manners particularly about the use of lotteries. Regarding allocation processes, this means that the allocator and the claimants do not know in advance who will receive the good and who will not. Thus, a lottery may ensure that nobody can be preferred on grounds of special considerations. This paper focuses on the question: Are lotteries fair and if so, when should they be used? An answer to this question is not only relevant for individuals and everyday-life decisions, but also in very broader terms for political, societal or economic questions concerning distributive fairness, with probably global impacts.
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
II. WHAT ARE LOTTERIES?
III. LOTTERIES ARE REQUIRED BY FAIRNESS: JOHN BROOME
IV. LOTTERIES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY FAIRNESS: TIM HENNING
V. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to evaluate the ethical validity of using lotteries in resource allocation processes, specifically investigating the conflicting philosophical positions on whether random selection is required by distributive justice when goods are scarce.
- Analysis of John Broome’s justification for lotteries based on fairness claims.
- Critical reflection on Tim Henning’s arguments against the moral necessity of lotteries.
- Examination of the relationship between distributive justice, the "general good," and random selection.
- Discussion on the practical and ethical challenges of determining fair allocation in the face of human uncertainty.
Excerpt from the Book
III LOTTERIES ARE REQUIRED BY FAIRNESS: JOHN BROOME
John Broome provides a justification for selecting people randomly (which in this context is tantamount to using lotteries) in allocative decision-making and suggests a quite intuitive theory of fairness. Therefore, Broome shows that lotteries are not only a cheap and effective procedure, but additionally and more importantly, that they are fair, even if special considerations about people, as race, gender, social worth, age, level of happiness etc., are not exactly balanced. If a good (or a bad) is indivisible, or cannot be distributed equally, and if all possible candidates have (roughly) equal fairness claims, in some occasions a decision-maker is justified to give everyone an equal chance of receiving the good by using a lottery. (Broome 1984: 40 ff.)
According to Broome, a fairness claim gives the candidates in question some claim to a good and so authorizes them to be treated fairly in relation to others with equal fairness claims, which does not simultaneously imply a right to the good (Broome 1984: 43). Because of Broome’s missing definition of “claims”, their source and implications, it is not exactly clear what he actually means by “some claim to the good”, without implying a right to it, which might be problematic for the proper understanding of fairness claims. As some of the candidates will not receive the good, their claims cannot be satisfied, wherefore it might be more appropriate to define fairness claims as giving all candidates a claim to be treated fairly and to be as strongly considered as all the others, and not a claim to the good itself. Unfortunately, Broome is not entirely clear about that, which will turn out to be the basis for Henning’s misunderstanding, analyzed later in this paper.
Summary of Chapters
I. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the problem of resource allocation under scarcity and presents the core research question regarding the fairness of lotteries.
II. WHAT ARE LOTTERIES?: Defines the process of a lottery as a random selection method that operates under a veil of ignorance to ensure impartiality.
III. LOTTERIES ARE REQUIRED BY FAIRNESS: JOHN BROOME: Explores Broome's theory that when candidates have equal fairness claims, random selection is a justified mechanism to provide equal opportunity.
IV. LOTTERIES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY FAIRNESS: TIM HENNING: Details Henning's critique of the Lottery Requirement through the rejection of surrogate satisfaction, procedural, and consent-based accounts.
V. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the arguments and concludes that while lotteries can be fair, their application depends on the moral principles held by the decision-maker and the specific context of the conflict.
Keywords
Distributive Justice, Lotteries, John Broome, Tim Henning, Fairness, Resource Allocation, Moral Philosophy, Claims, Random Selection, Indivisible Goods, General Good, Ethical Theory, Impartiality, Consent, Human Rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental issue addressed in this paper?
The paper addresses the ethical challenge of allocating scarce resources when it is impossible to satisfy all claimants equally, specifically focusing on whether random selection (lotteries) serves as a fair resolution.
What are the central thematic fields?
The core themes include distributive justice, the definition of fairness in conflict situations, the utilitarian concept of the "general good," and the moral limitations of random selection procedures.
What is the primary research question?
The research is driven by the question: "Are lotteries fair and if so, when should they be used?"
Which scientific method is utilized?
The paper employs a critical literature analysis, comparing and contrasting the philosophical arguments of John Broome and Tim Henning regarding moral requirements in allocation.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section investigates Broome’s argument for the necessity of lotteries to uphold fairness, followed by a critical counter-analysis of Henning’s arguments that reject the moral necessity of such procedures.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include distributive justice, fairness, random selection, lotteries, and moral philosophy.
Does the author consider a lottery always the best solution?
No, the author concludes that there is no universal moral principle for using lotteries and that every conflict case must be analyzed independently, with lotteries acting as a potential second-best solution.
How does the author interpret the concept of "claims"?
The author highlights that John Broome fails to clearly define "fairness claims," leading to ambiguity regarding whether a claim entitles someone to the good itself or merely to be treated fairly and impartially.
- Citar trabajo
- Andjelika Eissing-Patenova (Autor), 2018, Are lotteries fair and if so, when should they be used?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/437642
