Justice
"Distributive justice" as a sociological and philosophical question is concerned with how social goods are disseminated throughout the community. Traditionally, there are two kinds of these social goods: essential and non-essential. Essential goods would be such things as food, shelter, health care and so on. Non-essential goods by contrast are not life sustaining but life-enhancing (cars, stereos, cell phones and the like.)
The concept of "distributive justice" comes in at this point, and it is a concept heavy with questions. For instance, what scale of judgment is to be used in determining whether a service or an item is "essential" or "non-essential?" Further, who will be empowered to make that judgment? Will it be a government that is either elected or appointed, or will it be by a committee? And who will be responsible for distributing those social goods?
Historically, there have evolved several theories of how these social goods should be handled and controlled. Three primary philosophical constructs are in existence.
This has its basis, the idea that the moral or ethical right to social goods is based only on what one earns. Social goods must be distributed only on the basis of a person's value.
This construct is based on the theory that each person has a responsibility to contribute according to his ability and the right to receive according to need.
This construct holds that inequalities in social goods are justified only to the extent that all people in the society have access to them and whether they are of benefit to the individual and the society as a whole.
The four writers that we will be discussing have dealt extensively with these three major constructs. Historically, given the four wr
...