Distributive justice is a legal and philosophical concept that focuses on a society’s rules for distributing goods and services. It involves the duty of society to allocate resources to needy citizens and ensure equity of access to basic human needs. Fair allocation is a problem that attracts much discussion among theorists, with differences of opinion lying in what constitutes fair allocation and what rights, protections, and services are socially necessary. Critics argue that personal accountability is not factored into many theories and that designing an allocation system to benefit the poor discourages personal motivation. Despite criticisms, distributive justice remains an integral part of nearly any legal discussion.
Distributive justice is a legal and philosophical concept that revolves around a society’s rules for the distribution of goods and services. The concept carries the weight of many complex philosophical questions, such as a society’s role in promoting the common welfare and the importance of universal human rights. Proponents of distributive justice tend to suggest that society has an intrinsic duty to allocate resources to needy citizens and to oversee equity of access to basic human needs.
The basic theory of distributive justice suggests that society inherently owes individuals rights and protections. These duties can include things like laws that protect free speech or freedom of religion, but they can also include basic goods and services considered necessary for human survival and dignity. Within these simple principles, however, there is a great deal of controversy among legal scholars, academics, and philosophers. Primarily, differences of opinion lie in the areas of what constitutes fair allocation and what rights, protections, and services are socially necessary within distributive justice.
Fair allocation is a problem of distributive justice that attracts much discussion among theorists. In a strictly equal society, every citizen would receive exactly the same rights, services and protections, regardless of his contribution to society. While strict equality sometimes becomes law through the attribution of equal rights, such as the right to vote, it becomes more complex in terms of the services a government offers, such as welfare, health care or disability benefits. John Rawls, one of the most influential voices in theories of modern distributive justice, suggests that allotment must provide equal opportunities and rights for all, but also work to distribute goods for the benefit of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
Critics of distributive justice often cite that personal accountability is not factored into many of the theories of improving fair allocation. A person who cannot work because they are disabled may be more eligible for benefits than someone who chooses not to work because they are lazy. In this case, critics sometimes suggest that it is unfair to distribute resources and efforts to citizens who do not take personal responsibility for their lot in life. It is also argued that designing an allocation system to benefit the poor discourages personal motivation and can lead to a gradual increase in the amount of citizens who need or want to receive the benefits offered by the state.
Regardless of the criticisms, the principles of distributive justice are evident in the legal system of most modern societies. A citizen’s right to a fair trial, security, liberty, and other fundamental concepts of law are embedded in the fabric of constitutions and legal codes around the world. While fine-tuning the idea is an ongoing process tailored to fit each new generation, the essential basis of distributive justice remains an integral part of nearly any legal discussion.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
