Studies On Distributive Justice

Distributive justice is a hot topic in contemporary philosophy. One reason is that the unequal situation in distributive area is becoming severe as the development of society, while another reason is that Rawls's discussion on the issue in A Theory of Justice evoked a more keen debate. In the debate concerning distributive justice, there are three important perspectives between which the debate is most keen, including Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism and Libertarianism. This paper is planning to outline the debate on the issue in contemporary philosophy by examining theories given by the most influential philosophers in the three perspectives.Although they have different opinions on the issue of distributive justice, they also, I think, share a same political value, that is equality. Moreover, it is the point from which I examine these three perspectives. In fact, nearly all modern theorists construe the value of equality while holding different understanding on its specific meanings. This could be seen from their comprehensions on Kant's words: treat people as ends not only tools. They all believe that their theories expressed the most proper interpretation of the Kantian moral rule.The basic spirit of Utilitarianism was expressed out systematically by Bentham and Mill. The utilitarian principle they hold is very simple but strong. The greatest good for the greatest number is the utilitarian principle. However, the calculation of personal utility may conflict with the calculation of overall utility when it is used to make some policy or coercive law, and the calculation of overall utility may admits that it is necessary to sacrifice some ones'interest in order to ensure more happiness of others. Meanwhile, they hold that anyone's life is equally important and should be equally treated for their benefits. From the view of utilitarianism, equality is valuable just because it could maximize the value to treat everyone equally. Although utilitarianism also resorts to equality, and even asserts that they embodied the Kantian conception, Rawls thinks that the utilitarian principle treats people not only as ends but also as tools.For Rawls, justice always means some kind of equality and the key of equality is the distributive justice. In fact, Rawls's theory of justice is a theory of distributive justice. The end of his theory is to realize equality to the greatest extent.In Rawls's interpretation, the two principles of justice are fit to the basic structure of society. The first principle is used in the political area, ensuring the equal background and relevant political institution. The second principle is used in the social and economic area, ensuring the equal distribution. The core idea of Rawls's theory is in the difference principle. According to his democratic equality , no one deserves his advantages from the distribution of talents as no one deserves his original advantages in society. Therefore, he thinks that the principle of justice used to regulate the design of basic structure of society should work on reducing the influence of social arbitrary elements and natural luck on the share of distribution. The difference principle is just one like this. It implies that when one social arrangement has to produce some kind of inequality for some reason it can not be just unless it adds the benefit of the least advantaged to the greatest extent.Rawls's original position is essentially a kind of more abstract theory of social contract which is not like the classical theories of social contract resorting to natural law. It embodies a conception of demonstration of moral theory, that some principle of justice is justified for the fact that it is selected out by consensus in an equal original position. Moreover, the original position is completely one kind of hypothetical state which does not demand that the state like it is a reality ever existing. More specifically, it is one way of thinking. As long as you follow some kind of process, you could enter the original position whenever you like. The principles of justice are the outcome of a fair contract made in the original position.The core of Rawlsian distributive justice is equality while the idea for Nozick is right. Nozick think that special person has special right. Rights for special things fill the space of rights, not leaving any place for general rights in some material condition. One person has rights and entitlements to special things and how to use these rights and entitlements, which define the external side of resource for others to obtain. It will destroy others'rights if one capture or use others'property without their consent.On the basis of personal rights, Nozick comes up with the moral side-constraint which means that others'rights define the constraint on your action. This view prohibits you from destroying these moral constraints in the process of your pursuit for ends. He asserts that everyone should be treated equally because they have the equal rights not to be interfered. Nozick believes that the moral equality between persons embodies in the equal right not to be interfered by others. Everyone should be treated equally as equal personal.Nozick raised his holding justice against distributive justice. Before criticizing Rawls'distributive justice, he elaborates his theory of holding justice, that is the entitlement theory. Holding justice includes three topics. The first one is the acquisition of holdings or the capture of unowned things, corresponding to the principle of justice in acquisition; the second one is the transfer from one to another, corresponding to the principle of justice in transfer; the third one is the rectification of injustice, corresponding to the principle of rectification. After this, Nozick raised his criticism on Rawls'distributive justice. His criticism could be summarized into two pieces: one is the prerequisite critique on the question of distributive justice raised by Rawls; another is the structural critique on the type of theory raised by Rawls. Treat people as ends not only as tools. Utilitarianism, Rawls and Nozick all have their own interpretations of the Kantian conception, but who got the point indeed? When Kant elaborates the conception he is emphasizing the former on the basis of admitting the latter. The point of emphasizing the former is that"treating people as ends"is prior to"treating people as tools". So I think that both of Utilitarianism and Nozick all misunderstood Kant. Although Rawls also emphasizes that people can not be treated as tools, his difference principle has embodies"treating people as tools".However, this way of treating people as tools is justified to be plausible because it works under and for the former, and the most importantly that it is fair for everyone.