The Term Distributive Justice in Modern Society - Essay Example

Introduction The term "Distributive justice" in the modern society refers to the distribution of property throughout society in such a way that everybody enjoys a certain level of material means. The state or the government is expected to guarantee distributive justice to its people. The two related issues that are debated in distributive justice are the amount of means to be distributed and the degree of intervention of the state for its distribution. The degree of state intervention may vary according to the distribution of the material goods. That is, if the level of goods to be distributed is low, distribution by the market may be enough. But if everyone has to be supplied with enough or more of welfare protections, the state may need to interfere. This can be done by redistributing the goods so as to correct market imperfections. On the other hand, if everyone has to have an equal share of all goods, the state will have to be solely responsible for distributing the goods. Then, private property and the market may have no role. It is understood that distributive justice is necessary to justify property rights, and that it may even involve a rejection of private property. Those influential minority of citizens and theorists who believe that protecting property rights is the central job of justice, question whether distributive demands is actually a justice. Literature review The ancient and the modern meanings of the term "Distributive justice" are very different. That is, in the Aristotelian sense, "distributive justice" was related to the distribution of political status, in the sense that deserving people were rewarded in accordance to their merits and their qualities, and everyone got what they deserved. It was not relevant at all to property rights. The ancient principle was related to the distribution of goods on the basis of merit while the modern one demands a distribution regardless and independent of merit. The modern principle believes that everyone deserves some basic goods regardless of their merit and that merit making should begin only after some basic necessities like housing, health care, and education have been distributed to everyone. This modern principle is quite different from what Aristotle meant when he wrote about political status being distributed on the basis of social or moral status. According to the modern principle, everyone deserves these basic necessities on the virtue of being human. And since everybody is equal, it has to be distributed equally among people. Formally, justice has been understood to be a rational, enforceable, and practicable virtue. That is because it is actually rational, can be enforced and is practical. It is seen as a secular and rational virtue across different cultures and historical periods, unlike virtues like wisdom or charity which is mostly specific to religions and cultures. This is because the demands of justice can be explained and justified without any relation to religious beliefs and should be a virtue that governments should enforce. Justice should be the prime norm guiding political activity and should be one of the practical and readily achievable goals of the state. We can safely say that promoting belief in Christianity or enlightenment through Buddhism cannot be held as a project for justice because their goodness cannot be explained in terms of secularism or rationality. Similarly, friendship and its associated warmth, although a good thing to almost everyone, cannot be considered an object of justice because it is not an enforced virtue, but is dependent on the un-coerced feelings of individuals towards each other or amongst themselves. Thus, virtues related to religion and culture and feelings like friendship cannot be considered a matter of justice. Also, guarantee of freedom from illnesses and diseases cannot be considered a project of justice because, at least so far, it has been an impossible task to attain. Moving on to its substantial features, it is generally understood that justice is a virtue that protects individuals against violence or dishonesty at the hands of others and against demands made by the wider society wantonly or deliberately to sacrifice their lives, their freedom, or their property. "Wanton" is actually a vague term. It is not easy to say as to when, and for what causes, individual interests might legitimately be sacrificed. Different people and societies hold varying views. Like, individuals may be asked to sacrifice their lives, their freedom, or their property for any cause they share; they may be asked to sacrifice themselves only when the survival of their society is at stake; or may be they should never be asked to sacrifice themselves. There have been some political and religious figures who have argued that individual interests should not be very important and should never get in the way of the greater human good. But people who believe in greater human good disregarding individual interests also tend to have little regard for justice, redefining it in virtually unrecognizable ways. While people who respect justice tend to take individual importance rather seriously. Although what constitutes respect for individuals can be different in different cultures, religions and circumstances, and could be a difficult and controversial subject, yet certain acts are considered violations of respect everywhere. For example, it is considered that physically harming one's neighbors or defrauding them is an act of violation of respect for human beings and is a punishable offence all over the world. It is considered the duty of the government to protect people's rights and thus enforce justice. The above mentioned are acts that are considered wrong and are punishable in all parts of the world. This kind of justice is also called "negative" or "commutative" justice and it is said that this virtue is limited. Justice has also long been related to the distribution of goods and status. The opening lines of "Digest" by Justinian declare that "justice is giving to each person what is due to each." This carefully prepared work is supposed to cover both commutative and distributive justice. What is expected of us and due to our neighbors is that we do not kill, beat, or physically harm them and that we do not take things that do not belong to us or belongs to somebody else. We have rewards and punishments respectively for those who adhere to and those who violate these standards of behavior and justice. Criminals who violate these minimum standards of justice deserve a punishment befitting their crimes. While those who make great contributions to society deserve some kind of reward that match up to their contributions. With those whom we share a contractual relationship, it is important that we deliver on our promises or pay for our failure to do so. This case of distributive justice suits the Aristotelian concept of distributive justice, where every person should receive goods on the basis of his merit. But we need to explain and understand the modern concept of the distribution of basic goods of housing, education, health care and so on to all and as to why they deserve it. It could be explained that everyone deserves these basic goods on the virtue of being human. The concept of human equality as a belief is quite ancient. But the belief that human equality necessarily involves equality in political and social goods, if not economic goods, is a recent development. Many societies across the world in the human history believe that all human beings equally deserve a good life in some way or the other. For example, hierarchical republic which was practiced in the times of Plato is justified by him partly by the fact that the hierarchy would be good for those in its bottom echelon. Similarly, Aristotle says that slavery can be beneficial for the slaves if conducted properly. Caste hierarchies among Hindus also cause a lot of suffering for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. But this is justified by the claim that enduring the suffering uncomplainingly would help them gain merit by which they can rise to a better life in their next incarnation or rebirth. These arguments help represent the most in-egalitarian society as serving egalitarian ideals, making people feel that a particular society is based on equal rights and opportunities for everyone in some sense or the other. It is encouraging to note that all societies and cultures have, in some fundamental sense, regarded all human beings as equal and have strived towards a better life for everyone. But unfortunately, this belief does not contribute much to the equality of humans in terms of social, economic, or political status. That is, in spite of all these beliefs, an individual's life in terms of social, economic, or political status does not improve. Some assumptions have been provided, the presence of any of which will point towards the fact that the society needs to work on its equality in principle of all human beings, metaphysical egalitarianism. It makes us presume that efforts have to be made towards making people socially, politically, and economically equal. The assumptions are as follows: 1. The belief that poverty is a punishment for sin. It is believed the poor, who are in principle equal to the rich, must have done something wrong to deserve what they have and hence the deprivation of equality. 2. Poverty is considered a natural evil, like earthquakes or sickness, which cannot be overcome by man, whatever he does. It is considered an inevitable truth. 3. The assumption that material things do not matter, and that the rich and the poor can live equally good lives no matter what their material condition is. Thus, no effort is made to change the lives of those who are not better-off. 4. It is believed by some that poverty is a blessing since it helps one to learn humility and to stay away from material obsessions. Hence, the life of the poor is considered equal or even superior to the life of the materially obsessed well-off people. 5. It is considered that poor people are comfortable and fitted for a life of poverty and that they would not enjoy a more luxurious life. 6. Poverty is considered necessary to keep the poor working, so as to keep them away from drinking and thus help them have a good life. 7. It is also thought that the poor have to be taught about manners and morals by the rich, thus helping them have a good life. 8. The right for equality over material goods for the poor and the rich is overshadowed by other problems like the importance for liberty. This is because many societies do not have such basic privileges like liberty. Conclusion In short, we can say that although justice is a very general term, we need at least some of the following premises to conclude about the modern concept of distributive justice. 1. Every individual, in addition to societies and human beings as a whole, has a certain virtue of goodness to them that deserves respect. Everyone deserves certain rights and protections in their pursuit of that good. 2. Everyone deserves and has rights over a share of the material goods, which is a part of the rights and protections that one deserves on the virtue of being human. 3. This distributive justice that everyone deserves can be justified in purely secular and rational terms and is independent of religious, cultural, or any other beliefs. 4. The concept and practice of the distribution of this share of goods is a practical project and is not something unattainable or useless. Putting in our efforts to achieve this distribution of goods will not go futile since it is an attainable project. It is not even like attempting to enforce friendship, since that would undermine the very goal of what one seeks to achieve. 5. It is also the duty of the state, not just private individuals or organizations to guarantee the distribution of goods. Read More