Bioethics in Tanzania: Legal and Ethical Concerns in Medical Care and Research in Relation to the HIV/Aids Epidemic
Author(s)
Young, Robert
Abstract
To the extent that what people deserve is unequal, any distribution of benefits and burdens in accordance with individual deserts is apt to work against equality in that distribution. Not surprisingly therefore, those who emphasize the place of desert in the determination of fair or just distributions see it as discrediting any thoroughgoing egalitarianism. Egalitarians have responded in various ways to the attempts of desert theorists to discredit egalitarianism, but two in particular have remained prominent. Some have argued that desert should at best have a relatively insignificant place in the determination of fair distributions; others more extremely, that desert should have no place at all in such determinations. In this article I shall defend the former sort of response against objections and then go on to outline how the response can be made applicable to some fundamental distributional questions (or, at least as applicable as a philosophical argument is likely to be).