Neven Petrovic

One of the central theses of egalitarian liberals in the domain of distributive justice is that talented individuals should not be allowed to keep their entire market-income even if it flows solely from their greater abilities. This claim is usually supported by one of several arguments or some mixture of them, but in the present paper, I want to concentrate on the version that invokes equality of opportunity as its starting point. Namely, it is claimed that every human being should enjoy an equal starting point in the life-race but that this is not secured insofar as some have greater natural talents than others. Therefore, egalitarians hold that results that arise from such an unfair situation are unjust and should be corrected by a redistributive taxation. I want to criticize this argument by hoping to show that it presupposes an untenable view about identity of persons.

Ovaj rad predstavlja studiju iz praktičke etike u kojoj se kritizira ne tako davna odluka njemačkog Federalnog ustavnog suda prema kojoj je protuzakonito oboriti oteti avion s taocima koji će se sigurno zabiti u zgradu punu civila. Strategija argumentacije jest da se prvo nabroje okolnosti u kojima se usmrćivanje nevinih ljudi čini opravdanim te da se zatim navedu konzekvencijalistička i deontološka načela koja takvo što pokušavaju opravdati. Nakon toga utvrđuje se u koju od tih vrsta slučajeva spada situacija koja se u radu istražuje, te se analizira što bi o tome reklo svako od navedenih moralnih načela. Zaključak jest da bi se sve uvjerljive moralne teorije, bez obzira na njihova inače mnogobrojna neslaganja, složile oko toga da oteti avion s taocima u takvim okolnostima treba oboriti. Iako nema pokušaja da se izloži opća teorija o ubijanju nevinih, na temelju istraženog slučaja nudi se i ideja o tome kako bi prihvatljiva teorija tog tipa možda mogla izgledati.This work is an exercise in practical ethics that criticizes a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court according to which it is unlawful to crush down a highjacked plan with hostages, which is certain to hit a building full of civilians. The argumentation strategy is to enumerate circumstances in which killing the innocent seems justified, and then to list consequentialist and deontological principles that try to show that doing this may be the right thing to do. After that it is investigated under which category does the case under the analysis belong and what would all of the listed moral principles say about it. The conclusion is that all convincing moral theories would, despite their otherwise numerous disagreements, agree that the highjacked plane with hostages should be destroyed before it hits the building. Although there is no attempt at a general theory on killing the innocent here, one hint at such a theory is offered on the basis of the present analysis

This article critically explores John Rawls’s contention that the personal assets of individuals, i.e. their mental and bodily powers, should not determine the size of their holdings. Since such an argument may have several forms, the first task is to establish which of them Rawls himself advocates. He relies, it is argued, on a version that attempts to convince us that personal assets should not play a decisive distributive role because they are undeserved. This account is then formally reconstructed, making all the relevant premises visible and preparing the ground for a critique that concentrates on the argument’s separate steps. Coming under attack first is the claim that everything should be deserved. The discussion examines next the premise urging us to find an ultimate, indisputable ground for desert-claims. Debate about this issue reveals some fundamental weaknesses in Rawls’s position: that he demands too much and is inconsistent; that some strong counter-intuitive consequences follow from his demands; and that his entire project, were such a criterion taken seriously, is undermined. Final comments are directed against the assertion that the community should own everything an individual does not deserve, showing that this does not remove moral arbitrariness, allows for the use of some persons as resources for others, and cannot plausibly limit its range of application. Most of these criticisms are not original, but are in accord with this paper’s main intention of combining as many good points against Rawls as possible.