[5] Luck egalitarianism is based on the idea that arbitrary factors (such as accidents or illness) should not influence equality, and therefore people should be compensated for undeserved misfortune that impacts their interests.
[1]: 10 Luck egalitarianism is intended as a fundamental normative idea that might guide our thinking about justice rather than as an immediate policy prescription.
The idea has its origin in John Rawls' thought that distributive shares should not be influenced by arbitrary factors.
Proponents of this school of thought are amongst others Simon Caney and arguably Charles Beitz; opponents, most of whom reject the above premise either in its entirety or with respect to inequalities in which one party's welfare is at least above some minimum level, include Robert Nozick.
[6] Elizabeth S. Anderson criticizes luck egalitarianism on the basis that when something is chosen does not necessarily make it acceptable.