Skip to content

Compensation vs. Rewarding Choice

Why It Matters

Distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate sources of inequality. Inequality from unchosen circumstances is unjust and should be corrected. Inequality from voluntary choice is acceptable. But the boundary between choice and circumstance is contested.

The Key Move

For any inequality, ask: Does it result from unchosen circumstances (brute luck requiring compensation) or from choices made with adequate options (option luck that should stand)? Compensation appropriate for former, not latter.

Classic Application

Healthcare. Expensive treatment for genetic disease: Compensate (brute luck). Expensive treatment for extreme sports injury: Less clear - was risk chosen with adequate alternatives? Line-drawing difficult but distinction remains relevant.

Surprising Application

Career outcomes in tech. Pay gap from lack of access to education/opportunities: Brute luck requiring remedy. Pay gap from choosing lower-paid field with better work-life balance: Option luck, possibly acceptable. But was the "choice" made with real alternatives?

Failure Modes

  • Treating all choices as voluntary when background conditions constrain options
  • Ignoring that "brute vs. option luck" distinction breaks down over time (past choices shape current circumstances)
  • Denying compensation for genuinely unchosen disadvantages by claiming people "chose poorly"
  • Expanding "brute luck" to include all regretted choices, eliminating personal responsibility

Go Deeper

Dworkin, "Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality"; Anderson, "What is the Point of Equality?" for critique of luck egalitarianism.