Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Distributive justice: Distributive justice is the fair distribution of goods, services, and opportunities in a society. Some theories focus on equality, meaning that everyone should receive an equal share of resources. Others focus on need, meaning that resources should be distributed to those who need them most. Still others focus on merit, meaning that resources should be distributed to those who deserve them the most. See also Justice, Community, Society, Equal opportunities, Inequalities._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Michael Walzer on Distributive Justice - Dictionary of Arguments
Mause I 199f Distributive Justice/Walzer: Walzer represents an egalitarian position with regard to the distribution of goods. However, it is not a matter of levelling, but of a variety of goods whose distribution follows specific rules depending on the goods. >Egalitarianism. Social Goods/Walzer: e.g. membership and affiliation, security and welfare, money and goods, offices, hard work, leisure time, upbringing and education, kinship and love, divine grace, recognition, political power. Dominant goods also allow their owners to acquire goods from another sphere while disregarding the distribution rules of that sphere. This is the case when persons hold offices in a society on the basis of mere party membership (and not on the basis of qualifications and performance) or when money (and not talent) decides on access to education. Dominant goods are unjust because they violate the internal logic of the spheres of justice and establish a principle of rule that exists across the spheres. >Social goods. Solution/Walzer: "complex equality": In communities with complex equality there are no dominant goods, the autonomy of the different spheres of justice is preserved. The principle of distribution of complex justice is formally as follows: "No social good X, regardless of its meaning, should be distributed to men and women who own a good Y solely because they possess this Y". (1) Because no sphere is subordinated to the other, different individual development possibilities are opened up. If the sphere-specific distribution principles are observed, the distribution result can be open-ended, i.e. unequal. VsWalzer: the practical question arises, how the autonomy and mutual independence of the spheres of justice can be preserved. Walzer's goal of reducing dominance requires a demarcation of the spheres. Ultimately, this can only be achieved by a state power. However, this contradicts the role of community activities and civil society involvement. (VsCommunitarism). >Communitarianism, >Justice, >Inequalities. VsWalzer: Question: Do his principles not only defend the status quo when they are so strongly tied to traditions and beliefs of a particular community? (2) 1. M. Walzer, Sphären der Gerechtigkeit. Ein Plädoyer für Pluralität und Gleichheit. Frankfurt a. M. 1992, S. 50. 2. Bernd Ladwig, Gerechtigkeitstheorien zur Einführung. Hamburg 2013. S. 167._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
||
> Counter arguments against Walzer
> Counter arguments in relation to Distributive Justice
