Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Pélabay, Janie 2017. Communitarian equality: to each according to their contribution to the group identity. International Social Science Journal,

    Michiels, Thomas 2016. Reconnaissance et justice éducative. Philosophiques, Vol. 43, Issue. 1, p. 93.

    Hoipkemier, Mark 2016. Critical Realism and Common Goods. Journal of Critical Realism, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 53.

    Barbieri, William A. 2015. Constitutive Justice. p. 90.

    Malsch, Ineke Subramanian, Vrishali Semenzin, Elena Hristozov, Danail Marcomini, Antonio Mullins, Martin Hester, Karena McAlea, Eamonn Murphy, Finbarr and Tofail, Syed A. M. 2015. Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 17, Issue. 5,

    Malsch, Ineke 2015. Communitarian and Subsidiarity Perspectives on Responsible Innovation at a Global Level. NanoEthics, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 137.

    Loobuyck, Patrick 2012. Creating mutual identification and solidarity in highly diversified societies. The importance of identification by shared participation. South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 31, Issue. 3, p. 560.

    Pijnenburg, Martien A.M. and Gordijn, Bert 2005. Identity and moral responsibility of healthcare organizations. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 141.

    Schilcher, Bernd 1999. Etzioni’s new theory: a synthesis of liberal and communitarian views. The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 28, Issue. 4, p. 429.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1985
  • Online publication date: June 2012

11 - The nature and scope of distributive justice

Summary

A vigorous debate is raging today about the nature of distributive justice. But the controversy concerns not only the criteria or standards of justice, what we would have to do or be to be just; it also touches the issue of what kind of good distributive justice is. Indeed, I would argue that as the debate has progressed, it has become clearer that the solution to the first kind of question presupposes some clarification on the second. In any case, recent extremely interesting works by Michael Walzer and Michael Sandel raise fundamental questions in the second range.

I want to take up both issues in this paper. In the first part, I raise questions about the nature of distributive justice. In the second, I want to look at the actual debates about criteria which now divide our societies.

First, what kind of good, or mode of right, is distributive justice? Rawls helps us by giving us a formulation of the circumstances of justice: we have separate human beings who are nevertheless collaborating together in conditions of moderate scarcity. This distinguishes it from other kinds and contexts of good. For instance there is a mode of justice which holds between quite independent human beings, not bound together by any society or collaborative arrangement. If two nomadic tribes meet in the desert, very old and long-standing intuitions about justice tell us that it is wrong (unjust) for one to steal the flocks of the other. The principle here is very simple: we have a right to what we have.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Philosophical Papers
  • Online ISBN: 9781139173490
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173490
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×