IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/utilit/v27y2015i01p82-91_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Broome's Theory of Fairness and the Problem of Quantifying the Strengths of Claims

Author

Listed:
  • KIRKPATRICK, JAMES R.
  • EASTWOOD, NICK

Abstract

John Broome argues that fairness requires that claims are satisfied in proportion to their strength. Broome holds that, when distributing indivisible goods, fairness requires the use of weighted lotteries as a surrogate to satisfy proportionally each candidate's claims. In this article, we present two arguments against Broome's account of fairness. First, we argue that it is almost impossible to calculate the weights of the lotteries in accordance with the requirements of fairness. Second, we argue that Broome rules out those methods whose use might provide some resolution to this problem. From these arguments, we conclude that, contra Broome, fairness does not require the proportional satisfaction of claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirkpatrick, James R. & Eastwood, Nick, 2015. "Broome's Theory of Fairness and the Problem of Quantifying the Strengths of Claims," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 82-91, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:27:y:2015:i:01:p:82-91_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820814000259/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Wintein & Conrad Heilmann, 2018. "Dividing the indivisible," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 17(1), pages 51-74, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:27:y:2015:i:01:p:82-91_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/uti .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.