en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 6/2019 
Issue 31

On Two Types Of Randomization In Distributive Decisions

Wojciech Załuski
Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie

6/2019 (31) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.120

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to provide a comparative analysis of two types of randomization – egalitarian and proportional – in distributive decisions, with a view to determining conditions in which they can be applied. It is argued in the article that justice reasons in favour of egalitarian randomization should be construed broadly (as embracing not only the situation of indifference – the equal satisfaction of a given criterion, but also the situations of the lack of criteria or their incommensurability), and that they are stronger than utilitarian reasons. It is also argued that the confl ict between justice ex ante and justice ex post may take an acute form only in the case of proportional randomization, which is why this type of randomization can be applied relatively rarely – only in two situations: if the distribution is repeatedly made and/or if the differences
between claims of the candidates (for a good/burden being distributed) are not substantial. Some other differences are also pointed out in the article, e.g., that while proportional randomization must always be statistical, egalitarian randomization may be at times epistemic. It is also argued that in some circumstances (e.g., in the context of the so called Number Problem) doubts may arise as to which type of randomization should be applied, and the applications of both types may prove to be equivalent.

References

  1. Bożykowski, M. (2012). Probabilistyczne metody podziału zbioru dóbr niepodzielnych. Decyzje, 26, 59–107. [Google Scholar]
  2. Broome, J. (1984). Selecting People Randomly. Ethics, 95(1), 38–55. [Google Scholar]
  3. Broome, J. (1990). Fairness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 91, 87–101. [Google Scholar]
  4. Broome, J. (1998). Kamm on Fairness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 955–961. [Google Scholar]
  5. De Coulanges, F. (1882). The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome. Przeł. W. Small. Boston: Lee and Shepard, New York: Charles T. Dillingham. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dowlen, O. (2008). The Political Potential of Sortition. Exeter: Imprint Academic. [Google Scholar]
  7. Duxbury, N. (1999). Random Justice: On Lotteries and Legal Decision-Making. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Eliaz, K., Rubinstein, A. (2014). On the Fairness of Random Procedures. Economic Letters, 123(2), 168–170. [Google Scholar]
  9. Elster, J. (1987). Taming Chance: Randomization in Individual and Social Decisions. http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/e/Elster88.pdf, 107–179. [Google Scholar]
  10. Feinberg, S.E. (1971). Randomization and Social Affairs: The 1970 Draft Lottery. Science, 171, 255–261. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fishkin, J.S. (1984). Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Family. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, B. (2005). Justice by Lottery. Charlottesville: imprint-academic. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hirose, I. (2007). Weighted Lotteries in Life and Death Cases. Ratio 20, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kamm, F.M. (1993). Morality, Mortality, Vol. I: Death and Whom to Save From It. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Komhauser, L.A., Sager, L.G. (1988). Just Lotteries. Rationality and Society, 27, 483–516. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lang, G. (2005). Fairness in Life and Death Cases. Erkenntnis, 62, 321–351. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lissowski, G. (1992). Probabilistyczny podział dóbr. Prakseologia, 3–4(116–117), 149–165. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lissowski, G. (1994). Ustalanie sposobu podziału dóbr w sytuacji eksperymentalnej. Studia socjologiczne, 3–4(134–135), 173–216. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lissowski, G. (2006a). Losowe metody podejmowania decyzji społecznych a etyka. Decyzje, 5, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lissowski, G. (2006b). Probabilistyczne zasady równości Klemensa Szaniawskiego. Decyzje, 6, 5–32. Machiavelli, N. (1993). Rozważania nad pierwszym dziesięcioksięgiem Historii Rzymu Liwiusza. [Google Scholar]
  22. W: N. Machiavelli, Książę; Rozważania. Przeł. K. Żaboklicki. Warszawa: „Verum”, 133–388. [Google Scholar]
  23. Perelman, Ch. (1963). Justice et raison. Bruxelles: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles. [Google Scholar]
  24. Peyton Young, H. (1995). Equity. In Theory and Practice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rassmussen, K.M. (2012). Should the probabilities count? Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 159(2), 205–218. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass., London, England: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosenberg, D., Shavell, S. (2005). A Simple Proposal to Halve Litigation Costs. Virginia Law Review, 91(7), 1721–1735. [Google Scholar]
  28. Samaha, A.M. (2009). Randomization and Adjudication. William & Mary Law Review, 51(1), 1–87. [Google Scholar]
  29. Scanlon, T. (2000). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass., London, England: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Saunders, B. (2008). The Equality of Lotteries. Philosophy, 83(325), 359–372. [Google Scholar]
  31. Saunders, B. (2009). A Defence of Weighted Lotteries in Life Saving Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(3), 279–290. [Google Scholar]
  32. Schoeck, H. (1987, 1969). Envy. A Theory of Social Behaviour. Indianapolis: Liberty Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Stone, Peter (2009). The Logic of Random Selection. Political Theory, 37(3), 375–397. [Google Scholar]
  34. Szaniawski, K. (1966). O pojęciu podziału dóbr. Studia Filozofi czne, 2(45), 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  35. Szaniawski, K. (1975). Formal Analysis of Evaluative Concepts. International Social Science Journal, 3(27), 446–457. [Google Scholar]
  36. Szaniawski, K. (1979). On Formal Aspects of Distributive Justice. W: Saarinen, E., Hilpinen, R. (red.), Essays in Honour of Jaakko Hintikka on the Occasion of Fiftieth Birthday on January 12, 1979. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel, 135–146. [Google Scholar]
  37. Taurek, J.M. (1977). Should the Numbers Count? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 293–316. [Google Scholar]
  38. Timmermann, J. (2004). The Individualist Lottery: How People Count, But Not Their Number. Analysis, 64(2), 106–112. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wasserman, D. (1996). Let them Eat Chances: Probability and Distributive Justice. Economics and Philosophy 12(1), 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  40. Young, M. (1961). The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870–2033: An Essay on Education and Society. London: Penguin Books. [Google Scholar]
  41. Załuski, W. (2014). Two Concepts of Formal Justice. W: Stelmach, J., Brożek, B. (red.), Studies in the Philosophy of Law, Vol. 8. Foundations of Legal Negotiations. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  42. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

On Two Types Of Randomization In Distributive Decisions. (2019). On Two Types Of Randomization In Distributive Decisions. Decyzje, (31), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.120 (Original work published 6/2019AD)

MLA style

“On Two Types Of Randomization In Distributive Decisions”. 6/2019AD. Decyzje, no. 31, 2019, pp. 29-56.

Chicago style

“On Two Types Of Randomization In Distributive Decisions”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 31 (2019): 29-56. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.120.