User:EmilieBB/Distributive justice

Different theories in distributive justice
To create a list over the theories of distributive justice will inevitably come with its implications. It is important to take into consider the various nuances within each theory, as well as the development and variations in interpretations that exist for the theories presented in this article. The listed theories below are three of the most prominent Anglo-American theories within the field. With this in mind, the list is in no way to be considered exhaustive for distributive justice theory.

Justice as fairness
In his book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls outlines his famous theory about justice as fairness. The theory consists of three core components: 1) the equality of people in rights and liberties, 2) the equality of opportunities for all, and 3) an arrangement of economic inequalities focused on benefit maximisation for those who are least advantaged . In this section the basic notions of the theory will be outlined. For a further specification, please see A Theory of Justice.

The just basic structure
Building a modern view on social contract theory, Rawls bases his work on an idea of justice being rooted in the basic structure, constituting the fundamental rules in society, which shape the social and economic institutions, as well as the governance. This basic structure is what shapes the citizens’ life opportunities. According to Rawls, the structure is based on principles about basic rights and duties that any self-interested, rational individual would accept in order to further his/her own interests in a context of social cooperation.

The original position
Rawls presents the concept of an original position as a hypothetical idea of how to establish “a fair procedure so that any principles agreed on will be just”. In his envisioning of the original position, it is created from a judgement made through negotiations between a group of men who will decide on what a just distribution of primary goods is (according to Rawls, the primary goods include freedoms, opportunities and control over resources . These men are assumed to be guided by self-interested, while also having a basic idea of morality and justice and thus capable of understanding and evaluating a moral argument . Rawls then argues that a procedural justice in the process of negotiation will be possible via a nullification of temptations for these men to exploit circumstances so as to favour their own position in society.

The veil of ignorance
This nullification of temptations is realised through a veil of ignorance, which these men will be behind. The veil prevents the men from knowing what particular preferences they will have by concealing their talents, objectives and, most importantly, where in society they themselves will end up. The vail on the other hand does not conceal general information about society, and the men are assumed to possess societal and economic knowledge beyond the personal level. Thereby, such vail creates an environment for negotiations where the evaluation of the distribution of goods is based on general considerations, regardless of place in society, rather than biased considerations based on personal gains for specific citizen positions. By this logic, the negotiations will be sensitive to both those who worst off, given that a risk of being in that category yourself will incentives protection of these people, but also the rest of society, as one would not wish to hinder maximal utilisation for these in case you would end up in higher classes.

The basic principles of a just distribution
In this original position, the main concern will be to secure the goods that are most essential for pursuing the goals of each individual, regardless of what this specific goal might be. With this in mind, Rawls theorises two basic principles of just distribution. The first principle, the liberty principle, is the equal access to basic rights and liberties for all. With this, each person should be able to access the most extensive set of liberties that is compatible with similar schemes of access by other citizens. Thereby, it is not only a question of positive individual access, but also of negative restrictions so as to respect others’ basic rights and liberties.

The second principle, the difference principle, addresses how the arrangement of social and economic inequalities, and thus the just distribution should look. Firstly, Rawls argues that such distribution should be be based on a reasonable expectation of advantage for all, but also to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged in society. Secondly, the offices and positions attached to this arrangement should be open to all.

These principles of justice are then prioritised according to two additional principles. First comes the principles of the priority of liberty, wherein basic liberties only can be restricted if this is done for the sake of protecting liberty  either 1) by strengthening “the total system of liberties shared by all”, or 2) if a less than equal liberty is acceptable to those who are subject to this same lesser liberty. Secondly, inequality of opportunity and the priority of efficiency and welfare can only be acceptable 1) if it enhances “the opportunities of those with lesser opportunities” in society, and/or 2) if excessive saving either balances out or lessens the gravity of hardship for those who do not traditionally benefit.

Utilitarianism
In 1970, Jeremy Bentham published his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Centred around individual utility and welfare, utilitarianism builds on the notion that any action which increases the overall welfare in society is good, and any action that decreases welfare is bad. By this notion, utilitarianism's focus lies with its outcomes and pay little attention to how these outcomes are shaped. This idea of utilisation maximisation, while being a much broader philosophical consideration, also translate into a theory of justice.

Conceptualising welfare
While the basic notion that utilitarianism builds on seems simple, one major dispute within the school of utilitarianism revolved around the conceptualisation and measurement of welfare. With disputes over this fundamental aspect, utilitarianism is evidently a broad term embracing many different sub-theories under its umbrella, and while much of the theoretical framework transects across these conceptualisations, using the different conceptualisation have clear implications for how we understand the more practical side of utilitarianism in distributive justice. Bentham originally conceptualised this according to the hedonistic calculus, with also became the foundation for John Steuart Mill' s focus on intellectual pleasures as the most beneficial contribution to societal welfare. Another path has been painted by Aristotle, based on an attempt to create a more universal list of conditions required for human prosperity. Opposite this, another path focuses on a subjective evaluation of happiness and satisfaction in human lives.

Egalitarianism
Based on a fundamental notion of equal worth and moral status of human beings, egalitarianism is concerned with equal treatment of all citizens in both respect and in concern, and in relation to the state as well as one another. Egalitarianism focuses more on the process through which a distribution takes place, egalitarianism evaluates the justification for a certain distribution based on how the society and its institutions have been shaped, rather than what the outcome is. Attention is mainly given to ways in which unchosen person circumstances affect and hinder individuals and their life opportunities. As Elizabeth Anderson defines it, "the positive aim of egalitarian justice is...to create a community in which people stand in relation of equality to others".

While much academic work distinguishes between luck egalitarianism and social egalitarianism, Roland Pierik presents a synthesis combining the two branches. In his synthesis, he argues that instead of focusing on compensations for unjust inequalities in society via redistribution of primary goods, egalitarianism scholars should instead, given the fundamental notion upon which the theory is build, strive to create institutions that creates and promotes meaningful equal opportunities from the get-go. Pierik thus moves egalitarianism's otherwise reactive nature by emphasising a need for attention to the development of fundamentally different institutions that would eradicate the need for redistribution and instead focus on the initial equal distribution of opportunities from which people then themselves be able to shape their lives.