Distributive justice

Description:

Analyzing the concept of community, it is shown that every individual enjoys two basic rights - a right to survival and a right to participation. It is argued that this implies that underdeveloped communities must give greater priority to guaranteeing the right to participation and to survival to their members than to satisfying any other needs. It is argued that the state has the right to transfer goods in such a way as to guarantee these basic needs. Nozick's argument that there is no such right is critically examined and rejected. Hayek's claim that the concept of justice can only be applied to individuals, and his rejection of the concept of social justice are criticized. A principle for deciding how basic goods should be distributed is established. The views of Rawls are examined and it is shown that although he correctly sees that the results of natural lotteries are irrelevant to questions of justice, he fails to draw the correct conclusions from this insight. Other aspects of Rawls' theory of Justice are critically examined - especially the difference principle - and an alternative suggested. It is argued that Rawls' is a theory of institutional or political justice - rather than social justice. Rawls' views are compared with those of Kant and Nozick and important differences are brought out. An alternative theory of justice is sketched, and it is explained why no explicit principles of justice can be given.

subjects: Economic conditions,  Distributive justice,  Distribution (Economic theory),  Developing countries, economic conditions

People: Robert Nozick (1938-2002),  John Rawls (1921-2002)

Places: Developing countries