IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v17y2018i1p51-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dividing the indivisible

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Wintein
  • Conrad Heilmann

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Philosophical theories of fairness propose to divide a good that several individuals have a claim to in proportion to the strength of their respective claims. We suggest that currently, these theories face a dilemma when dealing with a good that is indivisible. On the one hand, theories of fairness that use weighted lotteries are either of limited applicability or fall prey to an objection by Brad Hooker. On the other hand, accounts that do without weighted lotteries fall prey to three fairness paradoxes. We demonstrate that division methods from apportionment theory , which has hitherto been ignored by philosophical theories of fairness, can be used to provide fair division for indivisible goods without weighted lotteries and without fairness paradoxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Wintein & Conrad Heilmann, 2018. "Dividing the indivisible," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 17(1), pages 51-74, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:51-74
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X17715248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X17715248
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X17715248?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wasserman, David, 1996. "Let them Eat Chances: Probability and Distributive Justice," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 29-49, April.
    2. Tomlin, Patrick, 2012. "On Fairness and Claims," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 200-213, June.
    3. Piller, Christian, 2017. "Treating Broome Fairly," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 214-238, June.
    4. Vong, Gerard, 2015. "Fairness, Benefiting by Lottery and the Chancy Satisfaction of Moral Claims," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 470-486, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Lazenby, Hugh, 2014. "Broome on Fairness and Lotteries," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 331-345, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ho, Lok Sang, 1997. "Institutional foundations for a just society," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 627-643.
    2. Gil Hersch, 2023. "Procedural Fairness in Exchange Matching Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 367-377, November.
    3. Peter Stone, 2009. "Lotteries, Justice and Probability," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 395-409, July.

    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:sae:pophec:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:51-74. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.