Distributive Justice:

 

One of the things that can be evaluated as just of unjust is the distribution of the benefits and burdens of a society.  

 

Contrast this notion of “Justice” with two other notions:

 

Retributive Justice: (Lex Talionis). That principle of justice which requires that we “give back (re-tribute) to the giver what he initially gave.”  Alternatively, it is the motivation behind the idea of “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.[1]”

 

Most often this principle of justice is invoked to justify the punishment of crimes.  This is the concern (arguably) of criminal courts.

 

Also contrast with:

 

Compensatory Justice: That principle of justice which requires that individuals be compensated for effort they have expended or harms they have suffered.  Here the aim is not punishment for a crime or sin or moral infraction, but rather compensation. 

 

This is the concern of civil courts when plaintiffs seek compensatory (not punitive) damages.  It is also the concern of arbiters seeking “just wages.”

 

Distributive Justice is concerned with the just distribution of societal burdens and benefits.  Any given society with limited resources has only a certain amount of assorted benefits which it can bestow in a number of different ways on its members.  Likewise, it has a certain number of burdens which must be bared for the continuation of the society.

 

So the questions become:

 

 

 

In short, every society with limited resources must decide who will get the ocean-view condo's and who will live next to the elevator. The following Theories of Distributive Justice express competing views as to which of these ways is just.

 

Various Answers: Theories of Just Distribution

 

Any notion of distributive justice accepts the idea that “equals should be treated equally and unequals treated unequally.” (Purely formal principle of logic).  Granted by all parties is that “like cases should be decided alike and where we decide differently we must provide the morally relevant difference which justifies the distinction.”

 

But WHAT makes (or would make) a relevant difference?

 

Is it size, shape, color, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation? Are differences in character, need, ability, effort, or productivity relevant? The following theories make out what they take to be the relevant differences among the members of society in virtue of which they are entitle to unequal portions of the benefits and burdens.

 

Egalitarianism

 

For a just distribution each member of society should get completely equal shares of the burdens and benefits.

 

Egalitarians usually contend that there are no relevant differences among the members of society to justify unequal treatment.  Therefore, a just distribution according to an egalitarian is one in which every member of society is given exactly equal shares of society's benefits and burdens.  The argument for this view depends on the notion that all human beings are equal (in some fundamen­tal respect) and that in recognition of this they ought to be accorded equal shares of society's burdens and benefits.[2]

 

Socialism (Distribution Based on Needs and Abilities)

 

(The Theory, not the Political Party)

 

Burdens and benefits should be distributed on the basis of abilities and needs.  Or more specifically, the position claims that work burdens should be distributed on the basis of abilities and benefits should be distributed on the basis of need.

 

On this view, the just way of distributing the benefits and burdens of society is based on the needs and the abilities of the members of that society. As Marx put it, "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.[3][4]" 

 

Further, the benefits produced by such an arrangement should be distributed so as to maximize the welfare of the society, aimed first at meeting the “basic biologi­cal needs” of the members of society, then other “non-basic needs” until ultimately meeting the “luxury wants.”

 

Notice how this contrasts with Egalitarianism.  Rather than claiming that there are NO relevant differences that would justify a difference in distribution of burdens and benefits, they claim that there ARE relevant differences (needs and abilities) and to overlook these differences would be unjust (treating unequals and equals) [5]

 

Protestant Work Ethic  (Distribution based on Contribution)

 

            Note: This is sometime referred to as the 'Work Ethic' or the 'Puritan Work Ethic'.  But it is widely held by people of varied or even no particular religious convictions and many Protestants reject it.

 

For a just distribution each member of society should be rewarded in proportion to his or her (socially) productive work.           

 

Some theorists argue that the benefits and burdens of society should be distributed on the basis of the contributions that the individual makes to society.  The more people con­tribute through their work, for example, the more they should receive of the benefits of that society. 

 

This raises the question: how is “contribution” to be measured?  One way would be to reward on the basis of the effort an individual expends in his attempt to contribute to society (whether he is actually successful or not).  The idea behind this is that hard work is a good thing (virtuous) and people should engage in hard work and should not avoid it.  When they work hard they deserve more and should be rewarded. 

 

Another way of rewarding on the basis of contribution is to assess the actual productivity of the individual.  The question here is not whether the individual has actually worked hard to further the ends of society, but whether he has in fact contributed to the society.  On this view of dis­tributive justice, the just distribution rewards, not on the basis of effort, but on the basis of results, the quality of the product of the individual, regardless of the labor that went into the production of that product.  (This seems to diverge from the original justification and relies rather on notions of social responsibility and gratitude.)

 

Usually along with the Protestant Work Ethics there is a commitment to the DUTY of charity.  If an individual is unable to contribute to society (too young, too old, or infirm, etc.) then society as a duty to look after him.  They may differ on the extent of the charity owed such individual (health care, housing, education, art?), but they do believe that a society which ignores this obligation is acting unjustly.

 

It is worth noting that a system of distributive justice which sees the just distribution as the one proportional to individual merit would seem to rest on the presumption of freewill and personal responsibility.  Productive people merit more only if one assumes that they are personally responsible for their productivity.  Further, unproductive people only merit less if “it is their own fault” that they are unproductive.  The Protestant Work Ethic is consistent with this, in that it makes exceptions for charity cases.  Generally speaking, the more one believes that people are responsible for their degree of success the more sense it makes to say they deserve more.  Conversely, the less responsible you think people are for their degree of success or failure, the less you think the deserve more or deserve less proportional to their individual contributions. 

 

Libertarianism (Distribution Based on Freedom)

 

(The Theory, not the Political Party)

 

The just distribution is whatever distribution results from free exchange.

 

They take themselves to be heirs to philosopher Immanuel Kant.

 

No particular distribution can be said to be just or unjust apart from the free choices individuals make (Note the anti-consequentialist, intentionalist character to the theory- like Kant.).  Any distribution of the benefits and burdens of society is just if it resulted from the free choices of the members of that society. 

 

It may be stated (albeit awkwardly) as follows: From each according to what he chooses to do (give), to each according to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him or what they have been given (under this maxim) and haven't yet expended or transferred.

 

Any distribution that results from an attempt to impose a certain pattern on society (for instance, imposing equality on everyone or taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots) will therefore be unjust- no matter how noble it may appear since it is coercive.

 

Libertarians take the Kantian notion that coercion is wrong and run with it.  They seem committed to the idea that coercion is the ONLY intrinsically wrong action.  The only thing that could make a distribution unjust is that it resulted from coercive practices.  (And the only thing that could make a distribution just is that it resulted from free exchanges.) 

 

            Note: the idea of “deserving” has dropped away here.  LeBron James doesn’t deserve the money he has.  Rather, he is entitled to it only because people have freely given it to him.

 

Libertarians have no “target” distribution in mind (as the previous theories do) and are wary of any such utopian targets.  Often the only way to arrive at such targets is through the coercive re-distribution of wealth, unjustly taking the justly acquired goods of one in order to distribute them to some other.  This is why they object to taxation for social spending programs (health care, welfare, the NEA, etc.).  All taxation is a coercive use of government power.  (Notice the I.R.S. is not simply suggesting that you contribute, but threatening with fines and prison).  While taxation for the military, police and legal system is a necessary evil to safeguard our freedom, and thus a just activity of government, taxation for social welfare programs has no such justification.  When governments do so they exceed their just charter and abuse their power.

 

Closely related to Libertarianism are the Notions of Negative and Positive Rights, and Contractualism.

 

Negative Right: A right, the observance of which requires only that others to not interfere with the holder.  A “freedom from.”  Consider the constitutional right to property.  This does NOT mean that the government/society is obligated to provide you with property; it only means that if you already have property, the government has to see that you are left alone. Similarly with the freedom of religion (Government does not need to see that everyone has one.) and freedom of press (Government does not need to see that every citizen has a newspaper in which to publish his or her views.).  Notice I can respect each and every one of your negative rights simply by staying at home and leaving you alone.

 

Positive Rights: A right, the observance of which requires that others provide a good or service for the holder.  An “entitlement.”  Some claim that we have a right to healthcare and by this they do not merely mean that we have a negative right to healthcare, that we may pursue healthcare free from interference.  But rather they mean that each of us is entitled to healthcare (of some minimal standard) and that if society fails to provide any of us with healthcare then the rights of this person have been violated.

 

Contractualism: The ethical position which claims that one has no positive moral obligations to anyone else other than those one freely accepts.  (I do not OWE anyone anything.)  All morality requires is that I don’t actively harm anyone; I am not morally obligated to help anyone out unless I choose to do so- (e.g. I agree to watch your purse while you go on the rollercoaster.).

 

Whether there are such things as “positive rights” is a matter of debate.  The Contractualist seems to believe that there are none.[6]

 

But even among those who reject Contractualism, the lists of alleged positive rights vary.  It is worth noting that the more recently drafted “Bills of Rights” and national constitutions are, the more likely they are to contain positive rights.  The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights contains many. (See article 24 for instance.)

 

If there ARE positive rights, say to healthcare, than a libertarian might be persuaded that taxation for Medicare, like taxation for the military, is also a necessary evil required to safeguard the rights of the citizens and therefore justified.

 

Justice as Fairness

 

John Rawls’ theory is based on the assumption before we state what principles of distribution are just, we must first devise a fair method for choosing principles. Once a fair method for choosing the principles is devised, the principles we choose using this method should serve as our own principles of distributive justice.

 

Veil of Ignorance

 

To see if a principle is just or not, we must first determine whether original bargainers would select it from “behind the veil of ignorance.”  That is, imagine normal, self-interested people in a hypothetical position of getting to select what principles would govern distribution in a future society.  The condition is that they will have to live in that society AND they don’t know who they will be in the society.  They don’t know if they will be rich or poor, what race they will be, old, young.  In short, they know none of their empirically determined features.  Whatever principles these original bargainers select then will, necessarily, be fair to everyone and will not be based on personal advantage (since they lack the information to craft principles based on personal advantage).[7]

 

Rawls proposes two basic principles that he argues we would select if we were to use a fair method for choosing principles for resolving social conflicts.  The principles of distributive justice that Rawls proposes can be paraphrased by saying that the distribution of benefits and burdens in a society is just if and only if:

 

1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.

and

 

2. Social and Economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both;

            a.) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons in society

            b.) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

 

So note, while Rawls is an egalitarian with regard to political burdens and benefits, he would tolerate inequalities in the distribution of social burdens and benefits provided they adhere to conditions 2a and 2b

 

Capitalism[8]

 

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

 

 

Capitalism is better thought of as a system of distribution rather than a theory of distributive justice.  I mean by that that Capitalism is a system where burdens and benefits are distributed more or less according to market forces.  When individuals argue in favor of capitalism as the best or the preferred system of distribution they usually do so on the basis of other moral theories of distributive justice.

 

Three Arguments for Capitalism:

 

1.     Capitalism is a system that insures that individuals are rewarded in proportion to their productive effort. Therefore, this is the system that most nearly approximates the Protestant Work Ethic ideal distribution.

2.     Capitalism is a system built on a foundation of respect for individuals' rights to private property and free exchange.  Therefore, this is the system that most nearly approximates the Libertarian ideal distribution.

3.     Capitalism has been seen to be the most beneficial system of distribution, motivating the most talented and creative to complete and innovate and to provide better goods at lower prices and thereby secure larger market shares.  Therefore, this system most nearly approximates the goals of an Utilitarian, securing the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Critiques of these Arguments:

 

1.     There is nothing in the system that guarantees that individuals will be rewarded according to their productive effort.  They will only be rewarded to the extent that the market dictates.  And that is a function of demand (a fickle public, marketing, fashion) and supply (which increases and decreases according to forces unconnected with "social worth").  BIZARRE INVENTIONS THAT MADE SERIOUS BUCKS

 

Also there is nothing in the Capitalist system the speaks to our obligation to look after those who cannot look after themselves.

 

2.     First, critics of Libertarianism  would be unmoved by this defense.  But there is a more nuanced critique here.  There is a presumption that these "free exchanges" are between individuals in symmetric  relationships; that is, in positions of relatively equal power.  But such symmetric relationships rarely occur in real life.  And Capitalism per se does nothing to regulate these exchanges to insure that they are indeed fair.  Further, capital has been produced, historically, via all sorts of oppressive and coercive means (slavery, violence, threats of violence, deception).  If I received wealth from my father, say, who used coercive means to get it, then it really does not belong to me, since it was not his to give.  Likewise, if I made money in a system that came into existence by coercive means, the profit I generate is similarly tainted.  Finally, even a Libertarian would have to acknowledge the need for taxation in order to secure the protection of individual rights.  And if there are positive rights, then the even this Libertarian defense of capitalism would have to consent to a modification allowing for taxation to address these entitlement rights.

 

3.     Most will acknowledge that Capitalism does spur economic growth, innovation and development.  Marx believed a capitalist phase in economic evolution was necessary for this very reason, even as we progress to a Communist utopia.  However, there is nothing in Capitalism per se which assures that all or most members of society will see these benefits.  Critics of capitalism point to the disparity between rich and poor, the mindless and monotonous work heaped upon the vast majority of laborers, and the crass materialism they allege capitalism to encourage.

 

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

 

Smith seems to have agreed with David Hume that humans have a natural impulse to sympathy, and that helping one's fellow humans is inextricably bound to one's one happiness and success.  If so, then economic individualism (Capitalism) would naturally result in societal flourishing.  Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments,

 

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”[9]

 

Accordingly, Smith approved of individuals freely pursuing their “self-interest” since it was paradoxically "other directed."  Smith did not view compassion for others and individual self-interest as contradictory, but rather as complementary.

 

“Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only,”[10]

 

Charity, government regulated and enforced or not, cannot sustain a vibrant and innovative economy or system of wealth distribution. Self-interested economic individualism (capitalism) can, he believed.  Said Smith:

 

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (ibid.).

 

A final word about Private Property:

 

Most who defend the notion of private property being a right suggest that value is often created through work.  Since I have the "right" to self determination and to my body, I can do with it what I like (within certain limitations) and no one else has that right.  Likewise, my labor is "mine" and the increased value created by my labor is mine.  I therefore have a right to that value and no one else does.  All this to say that defender of private property say that individuals have the right to determine what to do with their bodies, their labor and the fruits of their labor.  In short, I own what a make and I am free to keep it, sell it, trade it or give it away.  These are the free exchanges within the capitalist system.

 

The Little Red Hen

 

(Alternative ending)

 

However, note that Marx would critique this by pointing out that the factory owner is not the producer of the value, but rather the factory workers are.  The owner of the factory can lay little claim on the value produced by the factory workers.  That value belongs mostly, if not entirely, to the laborers, Marx would claim.

 

Critics of Marx would claim that the owner invested risk capital for there to be a factory at all. They would also point out that the laborers negotiated to work for and agreed upon compensation package.

 

 


[1] Exodus 21:24

           

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

 

Leviticus 24:20

           

Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

 

Deuteronomy 19:21

 

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

 

Matthew 5:38-42

 

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.  And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.

[2] Some egalitarians hold this position in part because they also believe that most or even all of the differences among individuals, even difference in intelligence, talent and character, are the result of environmental factors (e.g. lucking out and being born into a good family or having the misfortune of being born into a lousy neighborhood) or genetic factors (e.g. lucking out and getting the “smart genes” or having the misfortune of getting genes the predispose you to violence).  Since neither of these is within the individual’s control, no individual is responsible for the differences these factors cause and therefore no one can be said to merit more or less based on such differences.  This is sort-of Rawls’ argument against the notion that successful people deserve more based on their socially productive work.  (See Determinism.)

[3] “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs” is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875.

[4] Alternatively, we might look to the Christian Bible.  “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)

[5] Many socialist additionally hold the position that humans realize their full potential in the exercise of their ability to do productive work, that we are essentially producers, NOT consumers.  Thus, key to a happy and satisfying fully human life is working productive­ly, not merely consuming the “right things.”  Productive work is its own “reward;” there is (should be) no need to further motivate people with the promise of personal gain or advantage.  This is reminiscent of Aristotle.

[6] On the face of it this seem bizarrely extreme.  It suggests that if I saw someone lying on the road, dying of thirst and walked blithely by, I have done nothing immoral, even if I was not in a hurry to go somewhere and a had a full bottle of water which I planned on throwing away as soon as I found a trash can.

[7] Note that this thought experiment approximates Kant’s 3rd formulation of the categorical imperative where we are required to act is such a way the we are both legislators and legislated in the Kingdom of Ends.  The function of “the kingdom of ends” here is the same as Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance.”  The selection of moral principles is to e done with not regard to our actual, empirical characteristics.

[8] For a more detailed discussion see Capitalism

[9] The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith 1759, part I, section I, chap. I, para. 1

[10] Wealth of Nations, Smith 1776, book I, chap. 2, para. 2;