The moralism of luck egalitarianism: A critique of two accounts of responsibility

Abstract

I develop a novel critique of the luck egalitarian focus on responsibility. Earlier critics of the theory have already made comments about the moralistic nature of the position. In this thesis I develop an extended account of why holding people responsible can fall to moralism in a political theory. I do so by discussing the two most prominent theories on responsibly: the reactive theory of Strawson and the reason responsive account of Fischer & Ravizza. Neither theory can give an adequate description of what it means to hold one responsible without avoiding moralism. Both cannot establish whether we really know when someone is responsible and thus whether we are better abstaining from judgment.