Distributive justice
|
|
Distributive justice concerns what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods (or utility) in a society. It is often contrasted with procedural justice. Distributive justice concentrates on just outcomes, while procedural justice concentrates on just processes. The most prominent contemporary theorists of distributive justice are John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
The two main types theories of distributive justice are end-state theories, and entitlement theories.
An end-state theory looks at the distribution of goods among members of society at a specific time, and on that basis decides whether the distribution is just. For example, someone who looks at standard of living, absolute wealth, differences in wealth, or any such utilitarian standard to judge justice is using a type of end-state theory. People who hold equality to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an end-state theory of justice.
An entitlement theory looks at the history of the situation, and evaluates on that basis. For example, a free market relies on the notion that if you buy something from someone who rightfully owns it, then it is yours. This appeals to history - a past legitimate trade. The resulting distribution of goods is irrelevant to this view. People who hold non-aggression to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an entitlement theory, since they look at the sequence of actions/transactions leading up the the current distribution. If goods were justly owned initially, and all later actions were non-aggressive and consentual, then the current distribution is just. (Cf: "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", Robert Nozick.)
Socialists tend to favor end-state theories, while capitalists tend to favor entitlement theories.
External links
- Dr. Sam Vaknin's page on distributive justice (http://samvak.tripod.com/justice.html)
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/)