According to some egalitarians the aim of equality is to compensate individuals for bad luck, if they are relatively worse off through no fault of their own. This distributive notion has been criticized by Elizabeth Anderson (1999) who argues that “luck egalitarian” philosophers have focused to neutralize a cosmic inequality rather than formulate principles for a community of equals. Luck egalitarianism will neglect the faulty and judge the beneficiaries, that results in various forms of discrimination. This essay aims to compare Luck egalitarianism with Andersons Relational egalitarianism. In view of different equality centered values, I argue that structural inequality should be the main focus of equality, at least in theories concerned with the causes and effects of unequal opportunities and outcomes. Luck egalitarians defense against Andersons criticism indicates a central egalitarian concern, that of social inequalities, however luck egalitarianism falls short through its indirect approach towards structural inequalities and inability to condemn all forms of oppression. Though Relational egalitarianism explicitly condemns oppression, the theory is faced with practical challenges that needs further attention.