The Principles Of Distributive Justice

In The Republic, the great philosopher Plato attempts to reveal through the character and dialogues of Socrates that justice is better when it is the good for which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions. This method leads the audience from one point to another, supposedly with indisputable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, therefore, building an argument.

This is important because inequality causes unrest and brings about interminable turmoil which can eventually lead to a collapse of a regime or a state. If every human being is given equal opportunities then the outcome after those opportunities were presented, whether it was success of failure, fully rests upon the individual’s shoulders. In case of failure, the government or any other individual would not be held accountable.

Reconnecting this interpretation of justice to distribution purely means that the virtue of justice, being concerned with the liberty, rights, and fairness of citizen 's in a society, must consider how the economic opportunities and social conditions affect the citizens in that society. While there may be cases of perceived inequality among the citizens of the just society, those inequalities might be acceptable if certain principles of justice insured the fairness of liberty and rights inherent in justice as the first virtue. Further, any inequalities in authority and wealth could be just, only on the condition that they benefit all citizens. In

Equality – all individuals should be treated equally, morally, by law, and in their political voice.

-Individuals should have the sense of fairness in, "what is distributed" or "what is right."

Since I value equality as well as respect for all human beings, essential to my framework is how I can act in a way that is most fair to all parties. Which decision will be fair and unbiased to all parties? In evaluating alternatives, I would assess the benefit and harm to each party involved and decide which I believed was fair across the board and served as the most wholly just action.

Procedural justice, is concerned with making and applying decisions according to fairness. Rules must be impartially followed and consistently applied in order to create an unbiased decision. Those carrying out the procedures should be neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or representation in the decision-making process such as a jury and its witness testimonies. Procedural justice amounts to four basic actions such as treat people with respect, listen to what they have to say, make fair decisions, and explain your actions. Social justice, is the largest and most important form of justice to most societies. Social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities,

The idea then of a just society I contend, comes down to people living under a fair and common law, order, political system, social organization, as well as everyone having personal and political freedom.

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 criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

Social justice is that status of the society where “equity” and “just treatment” of individuals exists. It is not limited to safeguarding the rights but also comes with responsibility to maintain a “society for all” providing equal opportunities. A socially just society can be achieved after examining the inequalities and seeking opportunity to curb the same by total elimination. The concept of social justice varies with the different philosophical approaches about the distribution or allocation of resources.

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.

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces