A Study On Walzer's Theroy Of Distributive Justice Of Pulralism

Distributive justice is an eternal topic of human society. The theory of distributive justice of monism, which was created by Plato, promoted by the utilitarian, and developed to the peak in the liberalists'hands with Rawls as the representative, has dominated in Western thought for a long time. The theory of distributive justice of monism clings to the hypothesis that "there is one, even only one, distributive system that philosophy can rightly encompass", and on this basis to build a single,and universal principle of distributive justice. The hypothesis about the theory and thinking logic of the theory of distributive justice of monism triggered both attention and discontent of Walzer. Due to the doubts about the theory of distributive justice of monism, Walzer restarted the new path of exploration and research of the distributive justice, and came up with the theory of distributive justice of pluralism.Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism was produced by the theory of distributive justice of monism founded or inherited by Plato,utilitarianism and rights theorists, especially the birth of Rawls's thought of distributive justice.In other words, Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism was the positive response to the theory of distributive justice of monism with Rawls' justice theory as the representative on the very great degree. Therefore, this paper studies Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism deeply and systematically mainly by the method of text centered. Meanwhile in accordance with the the method of text centered, this paper strictly abides by the intrinsic logic of Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism, and builds the discussed framework with the ideological origin,theoretical foundation,logical premise,core principle,comprehensive thinking as the main line for this study to be implemented.First of all, in ideological origin, the ideological origin of Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism can be explained from the tradition of theory of distributive justice of monism, especially Rawls's concept of distributive justice, and Walzer's criticism and challenges. The tradition of theory of distributive justice of monism includes Plato's legacy of distributive justice, the utilitarianism' single distributive justice and modelled distributive justice dominated by right politics. Rawls's concept of distributive justice is constituted with the main content of "the right priority over the good, the original state and the veil of ignorance, and the two principles of justice and its practical stability". Walzer proposes criticism and challenges to the theory of distributive justice of monism from three aspects such as abstract methodology, illusory Utopia, "meaning" lack of distributive justice.In the next place, in theoretical foundations, the theoretical foundations of Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism included both methodology and core thesis. Methodology is divided into two aspects:one is the holistic ontology with "social origin"as the observation object. The other is contextual epistemology with "scene of knowledge" as the descriptive logic. The holistic ontology is established from an analysis to the "the constitution of the self" and the phenomenon of "we" and "them" throughout society.The contextual epistemology is established from an analysis to moral "thick" and "thin" and the path of discovery, creation, interpretation of philosophy research. The core thesis is that the social meanings of goods determine the distribution of goods. According to the social meanings of goods which decide the distribution of goods and the social meanings of goods have variability, the distribution decided by social meanings of goods must be plural and justice.Once more, in logic premise, there are three logic premises with Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism.The first logical premise is that the real distribution scene is the political community,neither the global community nor the history community. The second logical premise is that the ideal distribution target is complex equality which tries to defend the eternal distinction, which is contrast to the simple equality, instead of simple equality focusing on the number or quality of distribution. The third logical premise is that the fundamental distribution law is independent which is based on reasonable monopoly and clearly resist domination.After that, in core principles, the core principles of Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism are the voluntary principle of free exchange; the symmetry principle of belonging to deserve; the basic principle of meeting the needs. The voluntary principle of free exchange is determined by the social meaning of "possession right" that the particular good has to the person who own it. The symmetry principle of belonging to deserve is built on the basis of "the strict symmetry and equivalence relationship between the good and the person". The basic principle of meeting the needs is determined by the social meaning of "bottom line and dignity of life" that the particular good has to the person who receives it. Whether voluntary principle of free exchange, or the symmetry principle of belonging to deserve, or the base principle of meeting the needs, they can only play a role in a particular area, but can not play a role in all distribution fields. The principle of free exchange can not be used for "desperate transactions". The symmetry principle of belonging to deserve has "a painful topic". The base principle of meeting the needs has "unbearable weight".Finally, in the terms of comprehensive review, the comprehensive review on the Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism is carried out from three aspects. Firstly, the methodology by holistic ontology and contextual epistemology makes Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism charactered with positivism, culturism and relativism. Second, from the view of practical effect of the theory of distributive justice; Walzer and Marx are decoupled, Walzer and Rawls appear united outwardly but divided at heart; Walzer and Nozick reach the same goal by different means.Thirdly, in some core issues such as distribution field, shared understanding, control the strong countries,there are many limitations with Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism.That is to say it easily lead to controversy over it.Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism is a historical transcendence to the theory of distributive justice of monism. In terms of research methods, or demonstrative logic, or the core view, it presents some bright spots which the theory of distributive justice of monism does not have. In particular, Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism also puts forward a new idea and striving direction of "complex equality" for these people who demand for equality, and prescribe for achieving this goal, which greatly motivate and inspire people'confidence to achieve the ideal of equality. In spite of the fact of Walzer's theory of distributive justice of pluralism stems out of Ameirican theory soil, and is determined to be the most suitable for constitutional democracy society of America by Walzer. However, there are still many important implications for the practice of distributive justice in current China.For example, it tells us that we must continue to implement a variety of modes of distribution coexist in the distribution system, must contend with the reasonable income gap existence, must enhance the national autonomy and authority to stop other goods across the distribution field, and must put an end to "desperate" to defend the dignity of people.