-
2Distributive justice and compensatory desertIn Desert and justice, Oxford University Press. 2003.The compensatory desert argument is an argument that purports to justify inequalities in (some) incomes generated by a free labour market. It holds, first, that the principle of compensation is a principle of desert; second, that a distribution justified by a principle of desert is just; and third, that (some) rewards people reap on a free labour market are compensation for costs they incur. It concludes that therefore, a distribution of (some) rewards generated by a free labour market is just. …Read more
-
121Equality of resources and the demands of authenticityCritical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (4): 434-455. 2016.One of the most distinctive features of Ronald Dworkin’s egalitarian theory is its commitment to holding individuals responsible for the costs to others of their ambitions. This commitment has received much criticism. Drawing on Dworkin’s latest statement of his position in Justice for Hedgehogs (2011), we suggest that it seems to be in tension with another crucial element of Dworkin’s own theory, namely, its endorsement of the importance of people leading authentic lives – lives that reflect th…Read more
-
136The Limits of Hedonism: Feldman on the Value of Attitudinal PleasurePhilosophical Studies 136 (3): 409-415. 2007.This paper is part of a book symposium on Fred Feldman's, *Pleasure and the Good Life*. I argue that Feldman’s defence of hedonism, although successful on its own terms, is of less significance than it may seem at first, for two main reasons. First, Feldman’s defence of the claim that attitudinal pleasures are the chief good is either implausible or crucially incomplete. Second, Feldman’s claim that hedonists can overcome the objections levelled against them while remaining pure hedonists is on…Read more
-
186Coercion and libertarianism: a reply to Gordon BarnesAnalysis 73 (2): 295-299. 2013.Libertarians oppose coercion and champion a free-market society. Are these two commitments, as libertarians claim, wholly consistent with one another, or is there, by contrast, a tension between them? This paper defends the latter view. Replying to an article by Gordon Barnes, the paper casts doubts on the success of an argument aimed at establishing that, while coercion is justice-disrupting, all non-coercive but forced transactions that occur in a free market are justice-preserving
-
1Choice, Circumstance and the Costs of ChildrenIn Stephen de Wijze, Matthew H. Kramer & Ian Carter (eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice, Routledge. 2009.
-
76Rescuing justice and equality from libertarianismEconomics and Philosophy 29 (1): 43-63. 2013.One of the central motifs of G. A. Cohen's work was his opposition to capitalism in the name of justice. This motif was fully in view in Cohen's work on Robert Nozick's libertarianism: Cohen carefully reconstructed and relentlessly criticized Nozick's apologetics of the free market, which, he thought, was internally coherent but unconvincing. This article suggests that Cohen's opposition to libertarianism did not, however, go far enough, and identifies two respects in which Cohen's position coul…Read more
-
90Levelling the Playing Field: The Idea of Equal Opportunity and its Place in Egalitarian ThoughtJournal of Moral Philosophy 6 (1): 133-136. 2009.
Serena Olsaretti
ICREA & Universitat Pompeu Fabra
-
ICREA & Universitat Pompeu FabraProfessor
Areas of Specialization
Social and Political Philosophy |
Justice |
Freedom and Liberty |
Equality |