%0 Journal Article
%T Immigrants, Multiculturalism, and Expensive Cultural Tastes: Quong on Luck Egalitarianism and Cultural Minority Rights
%A Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen
%J Les Ateliers de l¡¯¨¦thique
%D 2011
%I Universit¨¦ de Montr¨¦al
%X Kymlicka has offered an influential luck egalitarian justification for a catalogue of polyethnic rights addressing cultural disadvantages of immigrant minorities. In response, Quong argues that while the items on the list are justified, in the light of the fact that the relevant disadvantages of immigrants result from their choice to immigrate, (i) these rights cannot be derived from luck egalitarianism and (ii) that this casts doubt on luck egalitarianism as a theory of cultural justice. As an alternative to Kymlicka¡¯s argument, Quong offers his own justification of polyethnic rights based on a Rawlsian ideal of fair equality of opportunity. I defend luck egalitarianism against Quong¡¯s objection arguing that if choice ever matters, it matters in relation to cultural disadvantages too. Also, the Rawlsian ideal of fair equality of opportunity cannot justify the sort of polyethnic rights that Quong wants it to justify, once we set aside an unwarranted statist focus in Quong¡¯s conception of fair equality of opportunity. Whatever the weaknesses of luck egalitarianism are, the inadequacy of the position in relation to accommodating cultural disadvantages of immigrants is not among them.Kymlicka a offert une justification ¨¦galitarienne de la chance influente en faveur d¡¯un catalogue de droits polyethniques visant les d¨¦savantages culturels dont souffrent les minorit¨¦s migrantes. En r¨¦ponse, Quong argue du fait que, si les ¨¦l¨¦ments d¡¯un tel catalogue sont justifi¨¦s, parce que les d¨¦savantages pertinents dont souffrent les migrants r¨¦sultent de leur choix d¡¯immigrer, (i) ces droits ne peuvent ¨ºtre d¨¦riv¨¦s de l¡¯¨¦galitarisme de la chance (ii) ce qui nourrit des doutes quant ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦galitarisme de la chance en tant que th¨¦orie de la justice culturelle. En tant qu¡¯alternative ¨¤ l¡¯argument de Kymlicka, Quong offre sa propre justification des droits polyethniques bas¨¦e sur l¡¯id¨¦al rawlsien de juste ¨¦galit¨¦ d¡¯opportunit¨¦s. Dans cet article, je d¨¦fends l¡¯¨¦galitarisme de la chance contre l¡¯objection de Quong en vertu du fait que si le choix compte, il compte ¨¦galement en ce qui concerne les d¨¦savantages culturels. En sus, l¡¯id¨¦al rawlsien de juste ¨¦galit¨¦ d¡¯opportunit¨¦s ne peut justifier le type de droits polyethniques que Quong d¨¦sire lui faire justifier, une fois mise de c t¨¦ la coloration statiste injustifi¨¦e au sein de la conception de la juste ¨¦galit¨¦ d¡¯opportunit¨¦s avanc¨¦e par Quong. Quelles que soient les faiblesses de l¡¯¨¦galitarisme de la chance, son caract¨¨re inad¨¦quat quant ¨¤ l¡¯accommodement des d¨¦savantages culturels dont souffrent les migrants n¡¯en fait pas par
%K ethics
%K luck egalitarianism
%K multiculturalism
%U http://www.erudit.org/revue/ateliers/2011/v6/n2/1008037ar.pdf