Student

They 're everywhere! McDonald 's hamburgers can be purchased in cities and suburbs, on riverfronts, in college football stadiums and in discount stores. There are fast food restaurants at most major road intersections, and billions of dollars are spent annually to advertise everything from fast food frozen yogurt to kid 's meals. Grocery stores have even gotten into the act with their own versions of fast food restaurants. Families with sick children can stay in Ronald McDonald houses located close to the hospital where the children are receiving treatment, and businesses routinely come to the aid of disaster victims.

Entitlement, the belief that one is deserving or entitled to certain privileges. What does this mean in our society? Our country has become an entitlement society. Causing a negative effect not only to our generation, but to our economy as well. This culture of entitlement is teaching an entire generation to be dependant on the government. Breeding a generation with little motivation and ambition. Our country's values which say we all have the ability to earn prosperity through whatever means necessary within the law. It isn't right to take from the hard working class to give to those who aren’t in true need of government assistance.

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

Nozick’s entitlement theory is a theory of justice and how society regulates the distribution of goods, money and property. “All that matters for Noziak is how people came to have what they have, not the pattern or results of the distribution of goods.” (Shaw and Barry, pg.115) His entitlement theory comprises of three main principles which were:

The universal truth that feelings of entitlement restrict enlightenment is evident in the essay “What is Poverty?” by Theodore Dalrymple through effective presentation of the Marxist Theory and Psychoanalytical Theory. Firstly, the universal truth that feelings of entitlement restrict enlightenment is displayed by the idea that enlightenment is not given, but it is achieved and discovered. Being given something is not the same as working for it and earning it. When an individual may be given something that the feel is an entitlement, they do not feel or understand the effort that went into gifting or giving them the object. The idea is showcased through a quote from the essay “What is Poverty?”:

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Entitlement to services is the right to access or use a service. Different people are entitled to different things from different services. For example, being entitled to 15 hours of free child care per week if your child is 0-4 years old. Entitlement to services protects us form being discriminated against by making sure everyone has the right to use the services they need to and makes it unlawful for people to be denied these rights. If people are discriminated against then entitlement to services will make sure that the service user can take legal action against the service/people/person that has denied them their rights. This promotes anti-discriminatory practice in health and social care. For example, to be entitled to receive a service in a residential care home you would have to be over the age of 65.

Means the distribution of goods, money, and the property is according to justice only if people acquired their holdings without violating the rights of anyone and becomes the owner of their possessions. If we view the Airbnb ban, according to this theory it is also considered injustice because people have the right to rent their own properties and they are not morally violating someone’s right by doing this. No one can take their property away from them so they have freedom to use their property without anyone interfering.

Spicer (2008) links distributive justice and resource allocation by proposing four possible approaches to establish divergent criteria, they are: democratic means, age based, personal responsibility based, and cost utility.

The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.

Distributive justice refers to what society or a larger group owes its individual members in proportion to the individual’s needs, contribution and responsibility, the resources available to society or the organization, and society’s or the organization’s responsibility to the common good. In health care, distributive justice requires that everyone receive equitable access to basic healthcare necessary for living (uco.edu. Legal and Ethical Issues in Healthcare/Ethical

Entitlement is an issue that many people go through on a micro-level but is spread out on a global level. Many people, including myself, have gone through (and probably still do) a time in their life where they feel that they deserve everything because the world revolves around them. The problem with this is that you don’t deserve anything, you earn it.

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.

I take up the "What is equality?" controversy begun by Amartya Sen in 1979 by critically considering utility (J. S. Mill), primary goods (John Rawls), property rights (John Roemer) and basic capabilities in terms of what is to be distributed according to principles and theories of social justice. I then consider the four most general principles designed to answer issues raised by the Equality of Welfare principle, Equality of Opportunity for Welfare principle, Equality of Resources principle and Equality of Opportunity for Resources principle. I consider each with respect to the more general normative principle that whatever theory of social or distributive justice we accept should be as ambition sensitive and endowment insensitive as