A Contrastive Study Of Distributed Justice: Rawls And Walzer

One of the most important subjects of the contemporary political philosophy isthe distributive justice. The justice of distribution even determines social justice.Different schools of political philosophers have discussed issues of distributive justice,which is representative of the genre is liberalism and communitarianism. This articlecompares the difference in distributive justice theories between Rawls and Walzer.Due to the communitarianism rise in criticism of liberalism, this article first statedRawls’s view and made a contrast through Walzer’s criticisms. The article is dividedinto five parts. First，what is the content of the principle of distributive justice. Second,what is the distributive justice. Third，what is unjust distribution.And forth,how weguarantee the justice.Finally, what is the realistic meaning for the conclusion ofdistributive justice. The two principles of distributive justice is the starting point ofRawls’s theory. He first assumed the original position, the veil of ignorance to coverhuman beings’ social status, natural talent and good idea, but they still has the abilityof rational choice. Under the original position, people are in equal status, and theynegotiate into agreement-justice principle. Principles of justice includes three parts,respectively equality and freedom principle, difference principle and principle of fairand equal opportunity. Justice principle is from the worst person to adjust theallocation of social interests, and the priority is the interests of the disadvantagedpeople in society, objecting to the monopoly of goods. The main content ofdistribution is the basic good; it includes the rights and freedom, power andopportunity, income and wealth, and self-esteem, etc. Rawls argues that throughprocedural justice distributive justice could be guaranteed. In real life we can’t ensurethat all aspects are equal for everyone, but we must try to be fair in the execution oflaw and system. The results through strict enforcement of the law and the system arejustice. Distributive justice is guaranteed by procedural justice. Walzer, as arepresentative of communitarianism, put forward his own theory of justice from thecriticisms of Rawls’s justice theory. First of all, he opposed the original position.Walzer’s policy philosophy is particularistic and he thinks that differences between people can’t be ignored. The particular historical conditions and social environmenthave made an impact on distributive justice. It is not correct that the veil of ignoranceto block these differences. Second, he opposed the basic good and the idea that allgood for people can be the content of the assignment. Again, he did not oppose themonopoly of goods as long as the good is not out of its assigned areas exchanged withother good. Finally, he put forward the principles of distributive justice ofcommunitarianism to ensure the distributive justice. Walzer’s distributive justice hasobvious differences with Rawls’. He emphasizes the particularity of the socialenvironment. Starting from the community, the standard of distribution is the commonunderstanding of the good among all members in the community. Both Rawls’ andWalzer’s distributive justice theory has its reasonable place. These theories are goodfor our national construction of democratic equality.