DOES DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE RESULT IN A JUST SOCIETY?
Theories of distributive justice (or social justice) usually take for granted the belief that political states (or societies) make up the relevant distributive units. As a result, these theories have, either explicitly or implicitly, been presented as if a just distribution of benefits and burdens only concerns citizens of the same state. This focus on states as the relevant distributive units has left the confusion that that the scope of distributive justice is equivalent to state borders.
Such a view implies that obligations of distributive justice only arise between compatriots. In recent years, sociologists have tended to examine the once-accepted beliefs that the best way to analyze a society is to consider the citizens of that society as they function within the state borders.
There is little doubt that state borders do play a crucial role in the distribution of benefits and burdens
in the contemporary world order. Indeed, it could be argued that one's citizenship by birth has a major impact upon that person's life-prospects, and is, for the most part, not subject to change by an individual's will and efforts. The main concern of this essay is to discuss the following question: "Is there such a thing as a just society?" In this paper, I will examine four competing views to this vexing question.
The views that will be examined are those presented in the works of four commentators: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Catherine MacKinnon. Although these four writers appear to be totally diverse, there is a common denominator: a belief in the power and essence of distributive justice. After a brief overview in which the concept of distributive justice is defined, the concepts of each of these four writers will be examined to see to what extent his or her belief structures coincide with the idea of distributive justice.
A Definition of Distributive...