Justice Economic Distribution 1 Distributive Justice Distributive justice

Justice & Economic Distribution (1)

Distributive Justice Distributive justice is concerned with how work that creates wealth and how the wealth that is created is distributed and considers on what basis such decisions may be made. Should the wealth be distributed according to (for example): , need, merit, equality, contribution, or ability to acquire?

The Nature of Justice Fairness ◦ Justice requires the fair treatment of members of groups of people or else looks backward to the fair compensation of prior injuries. Equality ◦ Justice requires that treatment of people reflect their fundamental moral equality. Deserve ◦ Justice requires that people get what they deserve or that each receive his or her due Rights ◦ One is often treated unjustly when one’s moral rights are violated

Rival Principles of Distribution Among the principles most frequently recommended as a basis of distribution are: ◦ ◦ ◦ To To To each each an equal share according to individual need according to personal effort according to social contribution according to merit Do we apply these principles at different times (i. e. , a prima facie manner)? Or should there be some precise guidelines for employing them?

Rival Principles Of Distribution Three main perspectives: Utilitarian, Libertarian (Nozick), Egalitarian (Rawls) Utilitarian ◦ The maximisation of happiness ultimately determines what is just and unjust ◦ Overall Social utility becomes the criteria for distribution ◦ Utilitarians are sympathetic to reducing income disparities in society (it is more likely to lead to better social well-being)

The Libertarian View These philosophers identify justice with liberty. Liberty takes priority over other moral concerns Liberty allows only a minimal or “nightwatchman” state. Such a state is limited to: ◦ Protecting against force, theft & fraud; ◦ Enforcing contracts; and ◦ Performing other basic maintenance functions

The Libertarian View Libertarianism is committed to free market relations. A totally free market is necessary for people to exercise their fundamental rights ◦ The market is morally legitimate; any attempt to interfere with consenting and non-fraudulent transactions is unacceptable. Utilitarianism defends laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of consequences (not liberty).

Nozick’s Theory of Justice (Justice as Entitlement) People have certain basic rights (e. g. liberty, life, health & property) ◦ Lockean rights (Natural & Negative) are independent of any social or political institution ◦ We are only required not to interfere with others. We have no obligation to do anything positive for anyone nor vice versa ◦ These rights are constraints on our behaviour A belief in these rights shapes Nozick’s theory of economic justice – “the entitlement theory”

Nozick’s Entitlement Theory One is entitled to their holdings as long as they are acquired legitimately (i. e. , you haven’t violated anyone's Lockean rights). Any other theory of justice inevitably fails to respect people’s liberty. If people are entitled to their possessions then the economic distribution is just. It doesn’t matter what the actual distribution looks like.

Nozick’s Entitlement Theory (Function of 3 Principles…) Just Acquisition – the legitimate appropriation of upheld goods or creation of new ones John Locke’s theory of property Just Transfer – legitimate transfer or Rectification – if you come by your holdings acquisition of holdings from others (e. g. exchange, gift, purchase, inherit etc) other than by applying the first two principles you are not entitled to it.

Property Rights Nozick’s theory makes property rights irrevocable. ◦ Exist prior to any social arrangements ◦ Morally antecedent to any legislative decisions Critics of this view argue that: ◦ Property is not simply restricted to material objects. ◦ Property ownership involves a bundle of different rights (e. g. to possess, use, manage, dispose of etc). ◦ The nature of this bundle differs among societies and can change over time. Consequently, PR’s are actually social constructions