Concept Of Distributive Justice Research Articles

Meritocracy, meritocratic education, and equality of opportunity

There are two ways, broadly speaking, that one might conceive of meritocratic education. On a standard, ‘narrow’ conception, a meritocratic approach to education is one which distributes certain educational goods and opportunities according to merit. On a second, ‘broader’ conception, however, meritocratic education is an educational system suited to a commitment to meritocracy – where ‘meritocracy’ refers to a particular conception of distributive justice. In this article, I argue that these two conceptions are incompatible with each other, and so the standard ‘narrow’ conception of meritocratic education is, in fact, incompatible with a commitment to meritocracy, at least given the typical way of understanding meritocracy. Of particular importance is that while meritocracy, as a view of distributive justice, requires a commitment to equality of opportunity principles, the narrowly meritocratic conception of education does not. The reason has to do with differences in the underlying justifications of the merit-based principles in each: Meritocracy appeals to moral desert, while the educational desert that is grounded by one’s merits is best thought of as a kind of institutional desert. Thus, I will argue, while meritocracy (and so the broad conception of meritocratic education) is constrained by a fair equality of opportunity requirement, narrowly meritocratic education is not. Recognizing the relationships between meritocracy, meritocratic education, and equality of opportunity, I argue, sheds considerable light on disagreements in the debate over equality of opportunity in education.

Konsep Keadilan Voting dalam Rapat Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang

Purpose: To explain the contradictions of the reconciliation arrangement in the meeting voting on the Debt Payment Obligation Deferral and to formulate the concept of ideal justice voting in the Debt Payment Obligation Deferral meeting. Research methodology: This type of research is normative legal research. Results: The principle of justice in the Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws contains that provisions regarding bankruptcy can fulfill a sense of justice for interested parties. The entire analysis of the concept of justice is related to legal facts in the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU which adopt the principle of balance by stating that the principle of "fairness" is not ideal. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the principles of justice in bankruptcy law and PKPU in order to fulfill the legal ideals of bankruptcy law. The legal ideals that have been fulfilled are elements of commutative justice, but considering the differences in the criteria or portions of each, according to the author, it is necessary to renew these legal principles based on the concept of distributive justice. Then ideally the voting results should ideally be binding on all parties. Limitations: This study is only related to voting norms in the bankruptcy law and PKPU. Contribution: This research is expected to be a reference and contribution to the Government in reforming bankruptcy law and PKPU.

No Acceptable Losses: Risk, Prevention, and Justice

Abstract Beginning in the nineteenth century, social statistics inspired a vision of society as a population characterized by a certain distribution of risks. The introduction of the risk paradigm has deep implications for central concepts in Christian social ethics like distributive justice, with this vision leading to a new concept of distributive justice as the equal distribution of risk. This essay describes tensions that arise due to the risk paradigm in relation to distributive justice: risks can always be further reduced, risk mitigation creates other risks, and there is no inherent rule of justice for balancing risks. While recognition of shared risk can create social cohesion, it also leads to interest groups struggling over which risks to confront. The essay illustrates these problems with two examples from health care: preventive health programs that manage disease risk through medication, and debates over school closures in respond to the Covid pandemic. Christian bioethics, as it wrestles with issues of justice, must address the problems created by the risk paradigm.

The debate on distributive justice revisited: The political philosophy and the economic perspectives on economic (in)equality

This paper reviews the broad literature on the concept of socio-economic inequality. It presents the debate between political philosophers and economists from an economic history perspective. In political philosophy, the concept of distributive justice is a normative principle which is closely related (although not identical) to economic inequality or income distribution in economics (and political economy). Originating in the 17th century, the study traces the evolution of the debate between egalitarianists and utilitarians to the modern times. It then continues to propose the alternative theories of capabilities and a reconciliatory theory of inequality of opportunity, reviewing a total of eight theories. Moreover, it continues to review the side of the debate from the economic perspective, exploring 12 theories ranging from Malthusian cycles to global inequality, the institutional perspective, economic insecurity, income polarization, and others. The debate concludes that, while economic theories are almost exclusively utilitarian and positive (as opposed to normative economics), political philosophy theories mostly contain normative aspects and are concerned with what is fair, which is not suitable for cross-national and time-variant research.

Principle of Proportionality as a Reflection of the Theory of Justice and its Application by Judges in the Resolution of Business Contract Disputes

In the business world, contracts have an important role in shaping the pattern of legal relations between the parties. Every business effort carried out by business actors is essentially a legal step, and this is in the realm of contract law. Business contracts are important instruments to secure the exchange of achievements and as evidence that there is a legal relationship between the parties in carrying out business transactions. Proportional distribution becomes the basis of thought in formulating contracts that are able to accommodate the interests of the parties. The principle of proportionality is a reflection of the Theory of Justice because the perspective of the contractual relationship of the parties combines the concept of equal rights in exchange (achievement-counter achievement) as it is understood that the concept of distributive justice in which it has the meaning of proportional distribution. Judges in resolving disputes using the principle of proportionality means to make reasonable and fair decisions based on the values of equality, freedom, and proportional distribution which cannot be separated from the existence of feasibility, propriety and the principle of accuracy.

Against robot taxes: scrutinizing the moral reasons for the preservation of work

A recent political proposal to address the challenge of technological unemployment suggests that the state should impose a tax on labor-replacing technologies. The idea is to preserve jobs by disincentivizing automation. In this article, I critically assess the proposal from an ethical perspective. I show that, with respect to conceptions of distributive justice, it is unclear that precluding consumers’ potential real-income gains from automation can be justified. But foremost, I examine the moral ideal behind the normative claim to preserve labor. I show that the arguments in favor of a robot tax rely on doubtful moral convictions on the value of work and I conclude that a moral basis for imposing a robot tax is subject to justified scrutiny.

Scanlon Against Desertist Theories of Justice

In his 2018 book Why Does Inequality Matter? T. M. Scanlon discusses the question how significant differences of economic advantage can be justified. He surveys a variety of possible justifications. In Chapter 8—‘Desert’—he focuses on the idea that a desertist theory of justice might attempt to justify such differences in certain cases by claiming that those who have more in those cases deserve to have more; while those who have less deserve to have less. Scanlon rejects this sort of attempted justification. Scanlon claims that desert ‘plays no role in distributive justice’. He seems to think that in order to explain how it could be just for people to receive unequal benefits, we will need to appeal to some conception of distributive justice that does not involve desert. In my 2016 book Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve from Our Country I presented what I took to be a thoroughly desertist theory of distributive justice—apparently a theory of precisely the sort Scanlon means to reject. Scanlon does not mention my theory. My aim in the present paper is to explain how my desertist theory avoids Scanlon’s objections. First I explain the conception of desert that Scanlon has in mind; then I present the core of Scanlon’s objections to desertist theories of distributive justice. Finally, I show that his objections have no application to the form of desertism that I proposed.

Dağıtım Adaleti ile İşten Ayrılma Niyeti Arasındaki İlişkide Duyarsızlaşmanın Aracılık Rolü: Bir Telekomünikasyon Firmasında Çalışan Mühendisler Üzerine Bir Araştırma1 (The Mediating Role of Depersonalization in the Relationship Between Distributive Justice and the Turnover Intention: A Research on Engineers Working in a Telecommunications Company)

Purpose – In this study, it is aimed to examine the relationships between the concepts of distributive justice from organizational justice sub-dimensions, depersonalization from burnout sub-dimensions and the intention to leave the job, and to reveal the mediating effect of depersonalization in the relationship between distribution justice and intention to quit. Design/methodology/approach – For the purpose of the study, a research was conducted on engineers working in a company operating in the telecommunications sector in Izmir between 8-26 May 2019. Feedback was provided from 102 out of a total of 133 engineers working in the company in question. The data collected by the survey technique were analyzed with SPSS 25 and AMOS 24 statistical programs. The hypotheses related to the research were tested and the results obtained were interpreted. The structural validity of the scales used in the study was analyzed with confirmatory factor analyzes and the hypotheses were tested with path analysis. Findings – As a result of the analysis, a moderate negative relationship between distributive justice and turnover intention (r = -0.475), a moderate positive relationship between depersonalization and turnover intention (r = 0.363), and a moderate negative relationship between distributive justice and depersonalization (r = -0.374) was determined. According to these results, if the perception of distributive justice increases, turnover intention and depersonalization will decrease; it can be said that if the depersonalization increases, turnover intention will also increase. It was determined that depersonalization has a partial mediating effect in the relationship between distributive justice and turnover intention. Discussion – In organizations, employees who believe that justice are; their commitment to their job and the organization increases and their intention to quit the job decreases. In other words; in order to prevent both the burnout of employees and the loss of successful employees of the organizations, it is important to ensure justice in organizations. In this context, the application of the research on engineers working in the telecommunications sector; to examine together the concepts of organizational justice, burnout and turnover intention, and to examine the relationships between the variables of distributive justice from organizational justice sub-dimensions, depersonalization from burnout sub-dimensions and turnover intention; for considerations of analyzing the depersonalization dimension as mediator variable; it is hoped that the study will contribute to the literature and it will be an encouraging study for new studies that will examine the variables in question.

Directions in Music: Stakeholder Perspectives on Blockchain Innovations in Music Streaming

In its various guises, blockchain technology has generated friction across a range of sectors; most notably as an enabler of anonymous trading, but perhaps more significantly in terms of longer-term adoption, via its application in supply-chain monitoring, and rights management. This article draws on stakeholder theory to examine the deployment of blockchain technology in the music streaming sector, in order to assess how these blockchain-based innovations - via interactions with users, market environments, and overarching economic and political frameworks - are contributing to evolving conceptions of ownership, inclusion and involvement. Initially, the article examines three approaches to theorizing and designing inclusive governance structures that acknowledge the distributed, and at times collaborative, nature of interaction between members of a group; be that a society, a company or other form of organized grouping. Here I draw on three discourses to underpin the evolving role that stakeholders - in the guise of networks, companies, societies and platforms – can play in digital commerce: (i) John Rawls’ concept of Distributive Justice, (ii) a set of principles known as the ‘Scandinavian approach to Participatory Design’; and (iii) the emergent concept of ‘New Economics,’ a term particularly associated with current and emergent left-wing political perspectives in the United Kingdom. Taking three use cases in Resonate, Musicoin and Choon, the article engages with how blockchain-based music start-ups are interacting with an evolving marketplace; identifying the benefits and beneficiaries of blockchain uptake, along with a wider set of structural changes that are taking place within music commerce. The article focuses on music streaming in particular to explore how blockchain is transforming the way that things are owned, and how it is contributing to an evolving conception of ownership, and reflects on how blockchain is finding increased used within the physical world of private and public property, and political governance. In response to this integrative analysis of blockchain in relation to critical perspectives on ownership and governance, the article concludes by considering how stakeholders with the music streaming sector are indicative of wider changes, challenges and tensions within the digital marketplace, and the role that innovations in blockchain can play in this transition.

Understanding Marx's Concept of Justice

Did Marx's critique of capitalism involve a concept of distributive justice? This question arose in a dispute that started in the 1970s, based on the argument by U. S. analytical Marxist Allen Wood. The dispute lasted for decades, and spread to China. But if we follow Marx's thinking, we see that this controversy already appeared then, in Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx's theory formed in response to the viewpoints of the Young Hegelians, the National Economists, and others. Some key points of the dispute can be clarified by tracking Marx's critical thought, from the standpoint of both its historical and its normative dimensions, juridical judgment and value judgment, the theoretical dimension and the dimension of reality. The research draws in particular on the text of the new MEGA.

How Is Criminal Justice Related to the Rest of Justice?

Are principles of criminal justice derived from a broader conception of justice, or does criminal justice involve some of its own distinctive principles such that it is not—for example—an aspect of distributive justice? Examining considerations regarding luck and desert provides an illuminating approach to this issue. The notion of desert has largely been excised from a great deal of recent political theorizing, and in particular, it has been eliminated from many influential conceptions of distributive justice. It is widely held that the pervasiveness of luck renders desert inappropriate to contexts of distributive justice, and incompatible with the freedom and equality of persons in a just political community. Should considerations of desert also have a minimal role in criminal justice—where they seem to still be important? Are considerations of desert in the context of criminal justice consistent with persons being free and equal participants in a just political community? How are principles of criminal justice related to principles of distributive justice and political justice in an overall just society? Many scholars agree that criminal justice presupposes an adequately just society. Still, that leaves open just how criminal justice relates to justice overall. That is the present topic.

Distributive Justice, Indirect Tax and Emerging Technologies: Problems and Solutions

This paper first gives a brief overview of the concept of distributive justice, and how it might apply to indirect tax rulemaking, expenditures and enforcement. It then gives an overview of the concept of indirect taxation, and applies the aforementioned distributive justice concepts to a concrete example – state sales tax in the United States. This paper proposes policy and enforcement solutions, enabled now by emerging technologies, that might help move indirect and sales tax towards justice. Finally, it outlines conclusions and known limitations to this paper and its underlying proposals.

“Farmaci insostenibili” e giustizia intergenerazionale in Sanità

Una ripresa secondo una dimensione pubblica del dibattito sulla giustizia distributiva in Sanità si è verificata in tempi recenti con l’introduzione dei nuovi farmaci antivirali ad azione diretta per il trattamento dei pazienti affetti da epatite C, estremamente efficaci nel curare la patologia ma dai costi esorbitanti. Obiettivo del presente contributo è di fornire un breve approfondimento sul tema dei c.d. “farmaci insostenibili”, esaminato sotto un particolare modello di giustizia distributiva, ossia l’egualitarismo, e secondo la prospettiva intergenerazionale. La conclusione è che ad oggi i sistemi sanitari stanno affrontando il problema della sostenibilità attraverso l’ottimizzazione della spesa farmaceutica, ma non sembrano ancora ben equipaggiati per affrontare l’eventualità di una divaricazione inaggirabile tra domanda e offerta di questa tipologia di farmaci. Quest’ultima va affrontata in riferimento all’idea di giustizia distributiva che ha una società, e più specificatamente, alla quantità di risorse che una società è disposta a pagare per la cura di un suo membro. Da ultimo, in termini di giustizia distributiva, l’idea – spesso supportata dalle analisi di farmacoeconomia – che sia giustificabile spendere una cifra molto elevata oggi per ricavare risparmi nel lungo periodo non è di per sé coerente con le principali teorie della giustizia, e necessita di argomenti a sostegno estrinseci ai loro presupposti teorici.

Il diritto futuro e la sua de-positivizzazione

In order to imagine the law’s future, we need reconstruct its past. The evolution of law in western countries disclaim a process of positivization: the law become and it is conceived as positive, i. e. less or more contingent, available for change. In more recent areas of law, such as constitutional, international and European Union’s law, However, inverses processes occur: the de-positivization of law. In constitutional case-law, in particular, an ever more crucial role is played by implicit norm as equality, reasonabless, proportionality. These principles are positive only in a very weak sense of the term: in reality, they are only a part, and a necessary part of the very concept of distributive justice.

Against the anticosmopolitan basic structure argument: the systemic concept of distributive justice and economic divisions of labor

ABSTRACT I examine the main anticosmopolitan Rawslian argument, the ‘basic structure argument.’ It holds that distributive justice only applies to existing basic structures, there are only state basic structures, so distributive justice only applies among compatriots. Proponents of the argument face three challenges: 1) they must explain what type of basic structure relation makes distributive justice relevant only among compatriots, 2) they must explain why distributive justice (as opposed to allocative or retributive) is the relevant regulative concept for basic structures, and 3) they must put forth a plausible concept of distributive justice. I show that Rawlsians support what I will call the ‘division of labor thesis’ to answer the first two challenges. Briefly, the division of labor thesis holds that distributive justice only becomes relevant where members of a division of labor jointly produce some socioeconomic product. To meet the third challenge, Rawlsians seem to accept what Elizabeth Anderson calls the ‘modern systemic concept of distributive justice’ – the idea that distributive justice organizes entire economic systems with respect to their distributive consequences or the relationships they maintain. I argue that if Rawlsians accept the systemic concept, they should reject the anticosmopolitan basic structure argument.

Accelerating the transition to alternative fuel vehicles through a Distributive Justice perspective

In this paper, we investigate the ongoing endeavor to transition from conventional transportation to more sustainable systems. In addition to the traditional environmental objective, we propose a novel measure to quantify the social performance by using the concepts of Distributive Justice (DJ) and Sustainable Transition (ST) to investigate the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV). In our context, DJ is defined as fair access to transportation, the latter being a vital means for people to realize their full capabilities in the society. Furthermore, ST measures the social dimension through DJ and the environmental dimension through AFV sales. To model the complex network of relationships characterizing this framework, we use System Dynamics methodology to study the long term impact of considering DJ and ST. Our findings show that policy makers should adjust their targets to consider DJ criteria along with environmental objectives, thus aiming at a sustainable transition. By doing so, they can control and hasten the transition to AFV. Finally, we evaluate the contribution of each policy instrument to guide the policy-making process and catalyze this transition.

Two (Different) Types of Human Rights Duty.

In this paper I introduce a (new) distinction to human rights theory, between two types of genuine obligations corresponding to human rights: a) obligations that require us to rule out specific considerations for treating people in a certain way, such as the obligation not to consider Jane’s skin colour when deciding whether she should be permitted to enter a shop or the obligation not to take political expediency as a relevant consideration to whether political opponents should be silenced, and b) an obligation to give some weight to different interests, those interests people have in enjoying certain conditions and those of people who must carry burdens to create these conditions, when deciding what must be done for rights holders. For example, we must weigh the interest Jane has in seeing certain improved access to health care secured versus the interests of other members of Jane’s society in not facing significantly-increasing tax burdens, or seeing reduced social opportunities for their ends, as these will impact on their abilities to pursue their own personal life projects. Both types of interest matter, so to resolve how much health provision Jane is entitled to have we need to know how to weigh them against each other – we need an index. These different types of obligations, with their basis in different forms of reasoning, cut across categories of human rights and can both exist for any one human right. Accepting the distinction also means accepting that we must pay attention to how a human right is given content in the form of obligations. It also re-introduces conceptions of distributive justice as a necessary component in solving how conflicting interests should be weighed and providing an “index” for such weighing.

The paradox of global environmental justice: Appealing to the distributive justice framework for the global South

While a relativist view of environmental ethics could be quite difficult to justify, it is also difficult to be so strict about the quest for global environmental justice. At the same time, even though the reality of environmental degradation is plain to see, most African traditional communities, and even their respective states at large, still wallow in poverty such that they remain in need of developing themselves if they are to reach the level of development of the countries in the global North. More so, the majority of indigenous and mostly poor and underrepresented African people in the global South are faced with disproportionate amounts of environmental benefits and burdens compared to their counterparts in the global North. In this article, I therefore seek to examine a normative framework for conceptualising global environmental justice within different environmental, social, political and economic contexts. I consider how best environmental benefits and burdens could be fairly distributed across communities with different environmental, social, political and economic advantages. In the end, I appeal to John Rawls’s conception of distributive justice as a framework for arriving at an acceptable view of global environmental justice that takes into account the circumstances of the global South.

What Has Private Law Ever Done for Justice?

This article identifies and explains an important and distinctive way in which a traditional set of private law rules, doctrines, and concepts (ie those that allocate particular goods to particular individuals) relate to distributive justice. Such rules, doctrines, and concepts are instrumentally valuable vis-à-vis a just allocation of goods in two different ways. On the one hand, and less controversially, they sometimes possess the ability to cause (or contribute to causing) such states of affairs into being. The article shows that they also discharge a constitutive function in relation to distributive justice, one that is required by conceptions of distributive justice that are centred around allocation-unbound justificatory criteria (which constitute the vast majority of the available accounts of distributive justice).

What Has Private Law Ever Done for Justice?

This article identifies and explains an important and distinctive way in which a traditional set of private law rules, doctrines, and concepts (i.e. those that allocate particular goods to particular individuals) relate to distributive justice. Such rules, doctrines, and concepts are instrumentally valuable vis-a-vis a just allocation of goods in two different ways. On the one hand, and less controversially, they sometimes possess the ability to cause (or contribute to causing) such states of affairs into being. The article shows that they also discharge a constitutive function in relation to distributive justice, one that is required by conceptions of distributive justice that are centred around allocation-unbound justificatory criteria (which constitute the vast majority of the available accounts of distributive justice).