The Concept of Distributive Justice - Essay Example

Distributive Justice The concept of distributive justice refers to the sets of principles that explain the of justice, during the distribution of some good or bad amongst different people. It refers to the nature of the allocation of goods within the society, in a socially just way. The concept takes into account the goods available for distribution, the distribution process and the resultant allocation amongst the members of the society (Lamont 34). Distributive justice, unlike the just process, emphasizes the outcomes of the distributive process. According to Rawls, distributive justice serves to ensure that all is done in a manner that guarantees equality for all; nothing should be done to damage or hurt another person. The principles of the model include that every demographic group should be offered access to the same goods and treatment as all others, where for instance, the poor receive the same healthcare services as the wealthy. Further, the advocates of this model hold that there is a need to change the outlook of our institutions, so as to ensure that they help in improving the lives of the disadvantaged within the community (Lamont, 43). On the other hand, Nozick views that distributive justice would be fair, in the case that it defined three main areas, including the ways that properties not owned by anyone can be acquired; the transfer of goods from one person to the other, and the course of rectifying past injustices – which arose from the violations of acquisition and transfer of goods (Wolff 57). Nozick views that the transfer, acquisition and the rectification of ownership should not necessarily be patterned to anything else. For example, he states that a gift or things acquired by chance can be duly owned and warranted. The distribution of property is fair, as long as it is done according to the rules of acquisition, rectification and transfer. The arguments used by Rawls in supporting his distributive justice include that all goods and liberties should be distributed equally among all people and the opportunities for positions or offices should be advanced in equitable manner (Wolff 57). Thirdly, the more advantaged within the society should contribute towards the betterment of the lives of the disadvantaged. The flaws in Rawls arguments include that he does not regard the entitlement of more goods or opportunities, which may be warranted due to individual traits. Secondly, the arguments do not accommodate for the acquisition of properties that are not claimed by any person, as well as the differences in the views of different people about equitability. Nozick argues that distribution patterns cannot be patterned and can never be representative of all cases requiring the exercise of justice among different individual, which calls for human rationality and differentiated preferences (Wolff 81). Other arguments by Nozik include that the distribution of good within the society arises from the aggregation of decisions about the talents to nurture, the location to live in and what to buy. Unlike in the cases where the model of acquisition or transfer is unjust, according to a theory of justice, the entitlement of property may not be questionable. Some of the ways of acquisition that may be unjust include fraud or stealing. The flaws of Nozick’s model include that the possibility of an unjust central distributor is not ruled out, the injustices of dispersed people are not explored, and the questions about the rights channels of distribution are not explored in details. Further, he refutes the paternalistic nature of the justice system, which can be evidenced through the structures of contracts, rights and the taxation structure. 2. The position that best characterizes Friedman’s position is this: B-“Business and/or corporate decision makers have moral obligations to society in general”. This is the theme behind his arguments; because his libertarian explanation of distributive justice is in favor of an operational free-market where there are well established rules that serve the interests of all and apply to all. The role of business and corporate decision makers is largely, focused around that of establishing the rules that will ensure the friendliness of the society to all people (Traub et al. 283-287). Through the rules formulated by the different sets of decision makers, all citizens – or the general society – should be allowed the equality of basic liberties, equality in income distribution and wealth allocation, which are regulated by the activities and the forces of the free market. Through the role of the corporate and the business decision makers, the citizens will have access to a formalized equality of opportunity, where a caste or feudal system does not restrict the progress or the wellbeing of different people or groups. The moral obligation of the decision makers includes those of ensuring that all people – if they employed the necessary strategies – to compete and win within the platforms availed by the rules established (Traub et al. 283-287). However, in real practice, people are less likely to have real equality of opportunity due to the wide range of disadvantages that restrict them from taking advantage of the competitive plane. These disadvantages include social class, family income, race, gender, and caste systems – the perceived or the real disadvantages mentioned make it difficult for the different members of the society to play from the same starting point (Traub et al. 283-287). 3. The advantage of comparing the relationship of business with society and that of the state to the society is that the association of the two helps to compare the interconnections of the state with the society, which could be adverse or favorable. The basis of the advantage is that the complex relationships within an organization, which touch other organizations and individuals, resemble the state’s relations with the society – internal and external (Jamali 215-218). The innumerable interconnections and their effects on the different stakeholders of the business require the oversight of a knowledgeable management. Such a management would clearly understand the relevant stakeholders, their interests in the business, as well as their alliances and power amongst one another. Through the extensive understanding of these relations and associations, the management is able to balance all the interests and the power of the stakeholders for the interests of all (Jamali 215-218). The similarity between the business corporation and the state highlights the importance of employing strategic decision-making in the affairs of the society through the state, which can guarantee that justice is upheld. For example, many large corporations dictate the political affairs of many states, which can affect the society adversely. Donaldson establishes and explains the process, using the political system of different states, where availability or the lack of advocacy groups and independent watchdogs make it easy or difficult for the irresponsible activities of powerful corporations to be uncovered. The relationship is also explained using the reference functionality of independent media, where its independence promotes the discovery of the irresponsibility of corporations, but the lack of independence for the media can lead to limitations in justice levels (Jamali 215-218). The explanation incorporates the association between the corporation and its stakeholders, as well as the relationships between the state and society, because all influence one another. Works Cited Jamali Dima. “A stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice”. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2008): 215- 218. Print. Lamont Julian. Distributive Justice. Farnham: Ashgate Pub Co., 2012. Print. Traub, Stefan, Seidl, Christian, Schmidt, Ulrich, and Levati, Maria. “Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice.” Social Choice and Welfare 24.2(2005): 283-287. Print. Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print. Read More