Is it unjust that elderly people suffer from poorer health than young people? Distributive and relational egalitarianism on age-based health inequalities

IF 1.6 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
K. Lippert‐Rasmussen
{"title":"Is it unjust that elderly people suffer from poorer health than young people? Distributive and relational egalitarianism on age-based health inequalities","authors":"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen","doi":"10.1177/1470594X19828020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In any normal population, health is unequally distributed across different age groups. Are such age-based health inequalities unjust? A divide has recently developed within egalitarian theories of justice between relational egalitarians focusing on the egalitarian nature of social relations and luck egalitarians focusing on the distribution of goods such as welfare or resources. I argue that the most plausible versions of these two theories – ‘whole lives’ luck egalitarianism and time-relative relational egalitarianism – imply conflicting answers to the opening question. Under realistic conditions, the former implies that, from the perspective of luck egalitarian justice, it is better that old people are disadvantaged by bad health than that they are not, whereas the latter theory implies that many age-based health inequalities involve unjust, non-egalitarian social relations and are therefore unjust. Hence, I contend that different egalitarian concerns must be balanced against one another, suggesting that the relational concern has greater weight in this particular case. Along the way, I propose a social model of old age analogous to the social model of disability and suggest that a whole lives version of relational egalitarianism might also be attractive.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19828020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In any normal population, health is unequally distributed across different age groups. Are such age-based health inequalities unjust? A divide has recently developed within egalitarian theories of justice between relational egalitarians focusing on the egalitarian nature of social relations and luck egalitarians focusing on the distribution of goods such as welfare or resources. I argue that the most plausible versions of these two theories – ‘whole lives’ luck egalitarianism and time-relative relational egalitarianism – imply conflicting answers to the opening question. Under realistic conditions, the former implies that, from the perspective of luck egalitarian justice, it is better that old people are disadvantaged by bad health than that they are not, whereas the latter theory implies that many age-based health inequalities involve unjust, non-egalitarian social relations and are therefore unjust. Hence, I contend that different egalitarian concerns must be balanced against one another, suggesting that the relational concern has greater weight in this particular case. Along the way, I propose a social model of old age analogous to the social model of disability and suggest that a whole lives version of relational egalitarianism might also be attractive.
老年人的健康状况不如年轻人,这是不公平的吗?基于年龄的健康不平等的分配和关系平均主义
在任何正常人口中,健康在不同年龄组之间的分布是不平等的。这种基于年龄的健康不平等是否不公平?在平等主义的正义理论中,最近出现了一种分歧:关系平等主义者关注社会关系的平等主义本质,运气平等主义者关注福利或资源等商品的分配。我认为,这两种理论最可信的版本——“一生”运气平均主义和时间相对关系平均主义——暗示了对开头问题的相互矛盾的答案。在现实条件下,前者意味着,从运气平等正义的角度来看,老年人因健康状况不佳而处于不利地位比不处于不利地位要好,而后者则意味着,许多基于年龄的健康不平等涉及不公正、不平等的社会关系,因此是不公正的。因此,我认为不同的平等主义关注必须相互平衡,这表明关系关注在这个特殊情况下具有更大的权重。在此过程中,我提出了一种类似于残疾社会模型的老年社会模型,并提出一种终身关系平均主义的版本可能也很有吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Politics, Philosophy & Economics aims to bring moral, economic and political theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies. The Editors are committed to publishing peer-reviewed papers of high quality using various methodologies from a wide variety of normative perspectives. They seek to provide a distinctive forum for discussions and debates among political scientists, philosophers, and economists on such matters as constitutional design, property rights, distributive justice, the welfare state, egalitarianism, the morals of the market, democratic socialism, population ethics, and the evolution of norms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信