ABSTRACT
The most famous objection to luck egalitarianism is the harshness objection. A paramount objection to luck egalitarianism is that it endorses a harsh allocation of resources. Harshness objections accuse luck egalitarianism of treating as relevant a factor that may weigh against rescue yet intuitively seems irrelevant in the situation: personal responsibility. Luck egalitarian personal responsibility can count in the health arena. Luck egalitarianism initially seems to demand an exceedingly harsh allocation of basic health resources-one that is intuitively too hard on those responsible for their own plight. A central reason why both luck egalitarian and democratic egalitarian recommendations seem as though they are too harsh is the biasing influence of the unrelated and irrelevant rule of rescue mentality. Luck egalitarian considerations of personal responsibility do obtain, even in rescue situations.
