What Is Distributive Justice?
What is Distributive Justice?
Distributive justice is generally referred to as fairness regarding the pattern of distribution among individuals. In order for distributive justice to be met, it is necessary for goods to be distributed fairly or justly. Goods are anything that holds value to any person(s); if something does not have any value then it is not a good. Value is the main requirement for something to be considered a good; therefore, not only physical goods hold value. Thus, such things as labor and medical insurance can be considered a good (Galvin and Lockhart 1182). There are also different principles of distributive justice as interpreted by the different support groups. The first of these principles is the one of strict egalitarianism in which it is believed every person should have the same level of material goods and services. The second of the principles is that of the difference principle stating each person has equal basic rights and liberties, but social and economic inequalities are there for ranking of different positions. The third principle is the resource-based principle that prescribes equality of resources determined by the free use of people’s resources. The next principle is welfare-based principle is used to maximize welfare. Following that principle is the desert-base principle which states people deserve certain economic benefits. The sixth principle is the libertarian principle; there is no followed pattern because the exchanges they as theirself are just are what is set forth. The next set of principles is the feminist principles that offer very distinct versions of every theory. The last of the principles is the methodology and empirical beliefs about distributive justice most notably stated by John Rawls. He brought the method of wide reflective equilibrium to philosophy (“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).
The international doctrine of human rights says, “Everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living for
Distributive justice is generally referred to as fairness regarding the pattern of distribution among individuals. In order for distributive justice to be met, it is necessary for goods to be distributed fairly or justly. Goods are anything that holds value to any person(s); if something does not have any value then it is not a good. Value is the main requirement for something to be considered a good; therefore, not only physical goods hold value. Thus, such things as labor and medical insurance can be considered a good (Galvin and Lockhart 1182). There are also different principles of distributive justice as interpreted by the different support groups. The first of these principles is the one of strict egalitarianism in which it is believed every person should have the same level of material goods and services. The second of the principles is that of the difference principle stating each person has equal basic rights and liberties, but social and economic inequalities are there for ranking of different positions. The third principle is the resource-based principle that prescribes equality of resources determined by the free use of people’s resources. The next principle is welfare-based principle is used to maximize welfare. Following that principle is the desert-base principle which states people deserve certain economic benefits. The sixth principle is the libertarian principle; there is no followed pattern because the exchanges they as theirself are just are what is set forth. The next set of principles is the feminist principles that offer very distinct versions of every theory. The last of the principles is the methodology and empirical beliefs about distributive justice most notably stated by John Rawls. He brought the method of wide reflective equilibrium to philosophy (“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).
The international doctrine of human rights says, “Everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living for
Cited: Beitz, Charles R. “Economic Rights and Distributive Justice in Developing Societies.” World Politics 33 (1981): 321-46. Brink, David O. “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (1992): 67-103. Diquattro, Arthur. “Liberal Theory and the Idea of Communist Justice.” The American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 83-96. Demos, Raphael. “A Fallacy in Plato’s Republic?” The Philosophical Review 73 (Jul 1964). "Distributive Justice." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 5, 2007. Francis, Leslie P., and John G. Francis. “Nozick’s Theory of Rights: A Critical Assessment.” The Western Political Quarterly 28 (1976): 634-44. Frohlich, Normal, Joe A. Oppenheimer, and Cheryl L. Eavey. “Laboratory Results on Rawl’s Distributive Justice.” British Journal of Political Science 17 (1987): 1-21. Galvin, Richard F., and Charles Lockhart. “Discrete Idiosyncratic Goods and Structural Principles of Distributive Justice.” The Journal of Politics 52 (1990): 1182-204. Hoag, Robert W. “Happiness and Freedom: Recent Work on John Stuart Mill.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (1986): 188-99 Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: New York, 2002. Mandelbaum, Maurice. “A Theory of Justice by John Rawl.” History and Theory 12 (1973): 240-50. Mara, Gerald M. “Politics and Action in Plato’s Republic.” The Western Political Quarterly 36 (1983): 596-618. Mathie, William. “Political and Distributive Justice in the Political Science of Aristotle.” The Review of Politics 49 (1987): 59-84. Nock, Christopher J. “Equal Freedom and Unequal Poverty: A Critique of Nozick’s Libertarian Case.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 25 (1992): 677-95. Rosen, Frederick. “Basic Needs and Justice.” Oxford University (Jan 1977) 88-94. Sachs, David. “A Fallacy in Plato’s Republic.” The Philosophical Review 72 (Apr 1963): 141- 158. Saxonhouse, Arlene. “Democracy, Equality, and Eide: A Radical View from Book 8 of Plato’s Republic.” American Political Science Review 92 (Jun 1998) 273-283. Seth, James. “The Alleged Fallacies in Mill’s “Utilitarianism”.” The Philosophical Review 17 (1908): 469-88. Ward, Lee. “Nobility and Necessity: The Problem of Courage in Aristotle’s “Nimochean Ethics”.” The American Political Science Review 95 (2001): 71-83. Winthrop, Delba. “Aristotle and Theories of Justice.” The American Political Science Review 74 (1978): 1201-216. Wright, R.G. “The High Cost of Rawl’s Inegalitarianism.” The Western Political Quarterly 30 (1977): 73-79. Zuckert, Michael. “Justice Deserted: A Critique of Rawl’s “A Theory of Justice”.” Polity 13 (1981): 466-83.