Distributive Justice Distributive justice concerns the fair, just or equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. These benefits and burdens span all dimensions of social life and assume all forms, including income, economic wealth, political power, taxation, work obligations, education, shelter, health care, military service, community involvement and religious activities. Thus, justice arguments are often invoked in connection with minimum wage legislation, Affirmative Action policies, public education, military conscription, litigation, as well as with redistributive policies such as welfare, Medicare, aid to the developing world, progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes. Distributive justice enjoys a long and honored tradition in political, economic and social thought. It is central to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (1976) and Politics (1999). In modern political philosophy, it has been construed in broad terms and seen as a foundational for policy formation and analysis. Michael Walzer (1976), for example, writes that “Distributive justice is a large idea,” and for John Rawls (1976) “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.” Thus, it is widely regarded as an important concept and influential force in philosophy and the social sciences. This description begs the question, however, of what, exactly, constitutes a “fair,” “just” or “equitable” distribution (we will use these terms interchangeably). It seems that justice terminology
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a much more positive outlook on the applicability of his political theory. In many ways, his ideal ideology would look much like Plato’s, although with a more guided and empirical approach. Aristotle, like Plato, argued that the state was not only necessary, but essential to the happiness of its people, because the state was the only means by which the city could achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, “the best good is apparently something complete” and likewise, that “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification” (Nicomachean Ethics, 205) and “everyone aims at living well and at happiness” (Politics, 315). Furthermore, he argued that “happiness is an activity of the soul expressing
Justice is when everyone has equal rights and is given fair treatment. Typically, this is
Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just
Inherently, not all people have the capability to live morally upright lives. Virtues are learned traits, and while a person may have a good disposition, his choices, which he makes based on learned information, affect the kind of life he lives. Therefore, there are just people and unjust people, as there are just actions and unjust actions. The ancient philosopher Aristotle wrote about an ideal city called “The Polis,” in which citizens lived a certain way in order to achieve a common good. Although Aristotle believed that everyone should live the good life (one of happiness), he also believed that in order to achieve the good life, people should get what they deserved, even if it meant injustice was a necessary consequence for some.
Michael I. Norton wrote the article titled “Unequality: Who Gets What and Why it Matters.” Collaborating with several experiments to prove his ideas, Michael came to the understanding that inequality, from whichever ladder of wealth you fall from, almost everyone supports the idea of being unequal (Norton 152). They do not believe however that we should be as unequal as we are today (Norton 151). Correspondingly, he also understands that inequality in its severity; negatively damages clear decision making, ethical and unethical choices, and demote motivation (Norton 151). Michael asked 16 countries what they assume the level of inequality is versus what they believed the right level of inequality should be (Norton 152).
The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle 's most important study of personal morality and the end of human life, has for many centuries been a widely-read and influential book. In this paper, my aim is to understand and explain how Aristotle, an ancient world-known Greek philosopher, developed the idea of ethics based on a teleological matter. Thus, I will explain how Aristotle relates virtue to telos. To start with, in order to answer this question, we have to give a brief and clear definition of his idea of ethics, what are a teleological matter, and his view of virtue and how he relates it to telos?
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word comes from the Latin word jus, meaning right or law. According to Kelsen (2000), Justice is primarily a possible, but not a necessary, quality of a social order regulating the mutual relations of men As a result of its importance, prominent and knowledgeable people have shared their views on justice and what it means and how the state is involved in its administration. The likes of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke among others have written extensively on the concept of justice.
In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.
In an attempt to amass an overall consensus of justice being desirable as a benefit to the health of the soul, and the necessity placed on maintaining its ideals as a virtue (as expressed by Socrates to resolve Thrasymachus 's definition); Glaucon extends his argument of justice to include the concept of the Three Kinds of Goods. As explained, all goods can be divided into three classes: as a mere means such as physical labor, as an end akin to joy, and as both a means and an end comparable to maintaining knowledge (book ii). Although an advocate for the belief that justice is coveted both as a means and an end, Glaucon alludes that most individuals classify justice under the first group: justice is no more than a mere means. He continues to elaborate on the idea that justice is viewed as a necessary evil, and that it is only maintained in order
We would assume that in our diversified society, these rights and freedoms are being extended to everyone without question. However, we face the matter of classifying ourselves based on a group we associate with, whether that be race, ethnicity, or gender. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, these classifications served as a powerful driving force to the inequality many faced. The inequality existed in two forms, inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. The first, inequality of opportunity, makes its way into practicality when laws or government decisions are the main driving force for widening social inequality.
Karim Fleifel Philosophy 210 First Paper To Do or To Suffer? In Gorgias, Socrates was having a conversation with Polus and through this dialogue Socrates reached to establishing a hierarchy of wrongs. Socrates classified that doing injustice is much worse than suffering injustice. Another idea Socrates states is that doing wrong act and escaping punishment is much worse than being punished on that act since punishment can remove the evil from a person’s soul. I am going to discuss these ideas as I think that doing injustice is not as bad as suffering injustice.
In the story “The Upside of Income Inequality”, Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy effectively express’s the importance and need for income inequality in our society. Furthermore, Holly Ellyatt’s newspaper article Income Inequality: Is It Good For Everyone? serves to also point out that economic success and greater productivity is linked to “income inequality”. Although it may seem extremely unfair for someone to make up to two hundred and fifty times as much money as someone else, this notion of “income inequality” actually benefits the society as a whole by encouraging others to work much harder in life and better themselves and their education.
The conclusion drawn is that Equity has developed, and the usage of some equitable maxims made equitable rules more determinate. Thus, the propositions made by the Professor is partially agreed. On the other hand, it is also argued that
Much like plato, the world now looks at “justice” in a multi dimensional way, not just according to laws, but according to rights and
Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two