Distributive Justice
Theories of
distributive justice provide moral accounts of how the benefits and burdens of
social existence should be distributed amongst the members of a society. Some
principles may call for radical redistribution (eg, communism with its
egalitarian ethic). Some theories may suggest that people should be given a
share of the social product proportionate to their merit, effort or desert
(just desert theory). Other theories hold that benefits and burdens should be
left where they are distributed by the operation of a market.
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
John Rawls’ theory of
justice as fairness has been the most influential distributive justice theory
of the last 50 years (see John Rawls A Theory of Justice). Rawls’ theory
is complex but has the following characteristics: -
(i)
It deals
with the way we would organise the laws and institutions of a society, it does
not seek to deal with the allocation of each and every possible item.
(ii)
Rawls’
methodology says that a distribution will be just if it is fair and it is fair
if it is a distribution we would agree to if we were seeking to establish the
principles for distribution within a society (the original position) in
circumstances where we had no knowledge of our own characteristics and what
would advantage or disadvantage us (the veil of ignorance).
(iii)
Rawls
argues that it would be rational if we were in the original position behind a
veil of ignorance to agree to a general rule of egalitarianism, with inequality
tolerated where it satisfied Rawls’ difference principle.
(iv)
The
difference principle allows inequality where it can be shown to be to the
benefit of the worst off members of the society.
(v)
Rawls
sought to justify his difference principle by appeal to so-called “maximin
theory” (ie, ensuring the best possible worst outcome. This is similar to what
is sometimes called the “precautionary principle”).
Rawls difference
principle is quite stringent. In arguing for it Rawls rejected utilitarianism
and its concept of expected average utility. This would permit inequality
wherever it could be shown that the inequality would improve overall welfare.
Rawls’ arguments for his difference principle are far from convincing and have
been much criticised.
Rawls opposed the
concept of justice as desert. Many inequalities in our society stem from the
differential rewards given to natural talent. Rawls argued that we did not
deserve our natural talents and therefore it made no sense to suggest we
deserve what those talents can earn. (eg, Pavarotti did not deserve his voice,
and therefore cannot deserve the millions that his voice might earn).
Some have argued that
Rawls’ theory of justice would produce something akin to the classical welfare
State of Australia, Britain or Scandinavia in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Redistributive taxation would be justified by Rawls, subject only to his
difference principle. Others have argued that a Rawlsian society would be far
more radically redistributive then a classical welfare state, while others have
argued that it may in fact involve quite wide disparities justified by the
difference principle.
Robert Nozick: Rights and Entitlement Theory
Robert Nozick in his
book Anarchy State and Utopia criticised Rawls’ theory on several
grounds. Nozick offered his "Entitlement theory" argued that if people have rights and exercise them freely
inequalities will occur as the natural result of the exercise of that liberty
(Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain example).
Nozick argued that
Rawlsian distributive justice involves constant interference with the exercise
of individuals’ liberty and freedom of choice.
Nozick argued that the
notion of desert was too stringent. Even if I do no deserve something I may be
entitled to it (eg, my health, my relationships with my friend’s family, etc).
If I am entitled to my natural talents Nozick argued, then this entails that I
may be entitled to the benefits derived from using and exercising my natural
talents.
Nozick argued that if
people had rights and liberty, justice should not be concerned with the
distribution of social benefits and burdens that results from the free exercise
by citizens of those rights. Justice theory should concentrate on whether or
not people’s rights have been violated.
Nozick argued that a
distribution will be just if has come about through conduct that did not
involve the violation of people’s rights. In other words, that its history did
not involve misappropriation or other violations. Nozick argued against Rawls
that justice theory should not be concerned with the end state pattern of
distribution provided there has not been misappropriation.
An important criticism
of Nozick’s historical entitlement theory is that we are not concerned with
founding a society from scratch. Any distribution in any existing society is in
part the result of past injustices. It would not appear to be just to apply the
historical entitlement principle unless we first sought to correct for the
effect of past injustices. The effect of those injustices may be so diffused
and tied up with the existing distribution that such correction cannot take
place. Any historical entitlement theory must confront the problems and
paradoxes of whether it is in fact possible to reverse the effects of past
injustices.
Walzer: A Pluralist Justice Theory
Michael Walzer in his
work Spheres of Justice argued that there is not one principle of
justice applicable to all possible social goods. Walzer argued that the
applicable principle will depend upon the nature of what is to be distributed.
Political power should ideally be distributed equally. Professional positions should be distributed
on the basis of merit and ability. Some benefits should be distributed in
accordance with the outcome of market operations, and others on the basis of
need.
Laws and Justice
Within the legal
system there appears to be no single principle of justice but several operating
at once. Property law appears to reflect a rights base and historical concept
of justice. Income tax laws appear concerned with redistribution. Some might
view tort law as redistributive, while others might view it as merely
restorative of pre-accident distributions.
What type of
distributive justice principles appear to justify: -
(a)
Succession
law
(b)
Trade
practices law
(c)
Anti
discrimination law
References
Brown;
Alan Modern Political
Philosophy, Penguin, 1986, London
Campbell; Tom Justice,
McMillan, London, 1988
Wolff; Jonathan; An
Introduction to Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
Nozick; Robert Anarchy State and
Utopia, Basil, Blackwell, Oxford, 1974
Rawls; John A Theory of Justice
(revised edition), Cambridge, Harvard, Belknap, 1999.