Theories Of Distributive Justice Research Articles

Wasiat Sebagai Penyeimbang Pembagian Warisan Menurut Hazairin Perspektif Teori Keadilan Distributif Aristoteles

The division of inheritance is a problem that will be faced by every family of Muslims.Jumhur ulama has established a method of division of property, namely by the method of inheritance. However, Hazairin has his own thought that the distribution of inheritance is not only done by inheritance method, but can also be compromised with a will in order to provide justice for each existing heir. This study aims to examine more deeply about the method offered by Hazairin, whether it can provide justice for the heirs or not. Therefore, a deeper study is needed using Aristotle's theory of distributive justice. The research uses a qualitative approach with the type of character study research, using secondary legal materials. The results showed that Hazairin's goal of making a will as a counterweight in the distribution of inheritance was to provide a share that was in accordance with the conditions of each heir, both in terms of weaknesses and strengths that were not considered in the inheritance system. Furthermore, the method initiated by Hazairin has met the indicators of Aristotle's distributive justice including being in accordance with the law, impartial, and proportional.

The Prospects for ‘Prospect Utilitarianism’

AbstractHun Chung argues for a theory of distributive justice – ‘prospect utilitarianism’ – that overcomes two central problems purportedly faced by sufficientarianism: giving implausible answers in ‘lifeboat cases’, where we can save the lives of some but not all of a group, and failing to respect the axiom of continuity. Chung claims that prospect utilitarianism overcomes these problems, and receives empirical support from work in economics on prospect theory. This article responds to Chung's criticisms of sufficientarianism, showing that they are misplaced. It then shows that prospect utilitarianism faces independent problems, since it too requires a threshold, which Chung bases on the idea of ‘adequate functioning’. The article shows that there are problems with this as a threshold, and that it is not empirically supported by prospect theory.

Unequal but just? Experimental evidence on (gendered) distributive justice principles in parental financial gifts

Abstract Research has documented gender inequalities in parental financial gifts, but it is unclear under which conditions these inequalities are socially accepted. We combine distributive justice theory with sociological and economic perspectives on intergenerational transfers to examine perceptions of fair allocations of parental gifts. By manipulating children’s characteristics in a multifactorial vignette experiment, we conducted in Germany in 2020 (N = 4284 observations of 714 respondents), we test the prevalence and gendered application of four justice principles (equality, need, entitlement and equity). While the equality principle was widespread, unequal gifts were legitimized both by children’s financial needs (unemployment) and exchange services (helping in parents’ household). These results indicate that the family is perceived as an agency for economic redistribution, potentially affecting society’s socio-economic structure. Moreover, exchange services weighed more for sons while needs weighed more for daughters, suggesting that gendered fairness perceptions are one possible mechanism explaining gender inequalities in financial gifts.

Systemising triage: COVID-19 guidelines and their underlying theories of distributive justice

The COVID-19 pandemic has been overwhelming public health-care systems around the world. With demand exceeding the availability of medical resources in several regions, hospitals have been forced to invoke triage. To ensure that this difficult task proceeds in a fair and organised manner, governments scrambled experts to draft triage guidelines under enormous time pressure. Although there are similarities between the documents, they vary considerably in how much weight their respective authors place on the different criteria that they propose. Since most of the recommendations do not come with ethical justifications, analysing them requires that one traces back these criteria to their underlying theories of distributive justice. In the literature, COVID-19 triage has been portrayed as a value conflict solely between utilitarian and egalitarian elements. While these two accounts are indeed the main antipodes, I shall show that in fact all four classic theories of distributive justice are involved: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, libertarianism, and communitarianism. Detecting these in the documents and classifying the suggested criteria accordingly enables one to understand the balancing between the different approaches to distributive justice—which is crucial for both managing the current pandemic and in preparation for the next global health crisis.

Epistemic Equality: Distributive Epistemic Justice in the Context of Justification.

Social inequality may obstruct the generation of knowledge, as the rich and powerful may bring about social acceptance of skewed views that suit their interests. Epistemic equality in the context of justification is a means of preventing such obstruction. Drawing on social epistemology and theories of equality and distributive justice, we provide an account of epistemic equality. We regard participation in, and influence over a knowledge-generating discourse in an epistemic community as a limited good that needs to be justly distributed among putative members of the community. We argue that rather than trying to operationally formulate an exact criterion for distributing this good, epistemic equality may be realized by insisting on active participation of members of three groups in addition to credited experts: relevant disempowered groups, relevant uncredited experts, and relevant stakeholders. Meeting these conditions fulfills the political, moral, and epistemic aims of epistemic equality.

PUBLIC POLICY OF SOCIAL SECURITY DUE TO COVID 19 LEGAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE

Various social security policies due to the impact of the covid 19 pandemic are carried out as an effort to move the national economy and strengthen people's purchasing power, the restoration of education so that it can be better. The purpose of this study is to find out the policy of social security during the pandemic covid 19 perspective the foundation of legal justice theory. Research methods, using the type of normative legal research with the first approach of legislation (statute approach), second historical approach (historical approach), third conceptual approach (conceptual approach), and Fourth analytical approach (Analytical Approach). While the types and data sources used can be used in two, namely primary legal materials and secondary legal materials focusing on Public Policy of Social Security During the Covid 19 Pandemic Perspective of Legal Justice Theory. The findings in the study showed that various social security policies during the covid 19 pandemic. First Family Hope Program (PKH), Sembako Program Assistance (BPS), Cash Direct Assistance, Cash Social Assistance (BST), Pre-employment Card, BLT small micro-businesses, BLT Village Fund, Productive Banpres for MSME Working Capital, Employee Salary Subsidy, and electricity discount by providing electricity tariff incentives for customers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, UKT Assistance, internet package assistance for students and students, BSU Lecturer, Pulsa ASN and Kouta are free, as well as other social protection programs. The two foundations of the theory of legal justice to social security policy due to the covid 19 pandemic show that policies in the aspects of education, business groups, communities, and employee salary subsidies, are still considered unable to embrace all elements, although using the distributive justice theory approach, let alone using affirmative justice theory that looks at equality in getting help due to covid 19.

Thresholds and Limits in Theories of Distributive Justice

Thresholds and Limits in Theories of Distributive Justice

Introduction

Introduction

Sustainable Energy for All? Assessing Global Distributive Justice in the Green Climate Fund’s Energy Finance

AbstractThere is growing international attention to the goal of universal energy access. Despite this, large financial gaps remain a major obstacle for realizing global energy justice for all communities. Drawing on political theories of global distributive justice, this article develops and applies a framework for how multilateral development assistance for energy projects can be evaluated in relation to three guiding principles. First, the global difference principle asserts that resources should be distributed to maximize the condition of the least well-off humans. Second, the local benefits principle asserts that resources should be distributed in ways that enhance the public goods of local communities, particularly those that are historically marginalized. Third, the global equality of opportunity principle asserts that all social groups and states have the capabilities to equitably access institutional structures relevant to the distribution of resources. We apply this framework to an analysis of finance for all energy projects within the Green Climate Fund (GCF) from 2015 to 2018. In doing so, we offer a nuanced understanding of the successes and failures regarding the performance of the GCF’s energy portfolio in relation to global distributive justice.

Private Duty Creation in Theories of Distributive Justice

Historical entitlement theories of property rights, which claim that individuals can acquire moral property rights over natural resources by appropriating them, traditionally face a strong objection: it is widely implausible that a single individual can unilaterally impose duties on everyone around him and yet, apparently, this is exactly what such theories allow. In this essay, I argue that the same problem appears in all other theories of distributive justice and if this problem was a reason to reject historical entitlement theories, it would also be a reason to reject all rival theories. Which means that as long, as one is committed to any theory of distributive justice at all, she, at the risk of inconsistency, cannot rely on the aforementioned objection to criticize historical entitlement theories.

Re-theorising international agricultural trade regulation to realise the human right to food in developing countries

The call to re-theorise international agricultural trade regulation to advance the human right to food has gained traction in various international platforms, including the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), among others. The emerging consensus is that the WTO-driven liberal rules on agricultural trade regulation have been unable to deliver effective outcomes for the realisation of the human right to food. This article explores options for re-theorising the regulation of international trade in agriculture to strengthen synergetic linkages with the obligations imposed on States to respect, promote, fulfil, and realise the human right to food enshrined under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and a number of other international human rights instruments. It contends that existing legal theories provide the basis for a plausible theoretical justification for incorporating explicit human right to food obligations into the WTO framework for agricultural trade regulation through the reform of key provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) pertaining to market access, domestic support to agriculture, and export subsidies. Theories of sustainable development and distributive justice theories spawn a comprehensive egalitarian imperative for re-conceptualising the rules of the AoA in pursuit of realising the human right to food, especially in developing countries.

Fat Cats, Production Networks, and the Right to Fair Pay

AbstractShould there be a legal right to fair pay so that anyone might challenge the relative fairness of their pay? International human rights law does not clearly support such a right, partly due to the uncertain meaning of fairness in pay. The article challenges this uncertainty, explaining the marginal relevance of theories of distributive justice. Standards of fairness should be discovered instead in principles of interpersonal justice, particularly the bilateral principle of good faith, and in associational principles of desert by reference to contribution and recognition of persons. These contain an egalitarian impulse providing moral reasons for rejecting market rates of pay and, it is argued, should apply beyond single corporate entities, to corporate groups and networks of companies sharing an integrated production scheme. Finally, appropriate regulations enacting a legal right to fair pay are explored with a view to achieving reflexive yet effective regulation using works councils to fix outer limits to wage dispersal ratios.

Modernism and intestate inheritance in South East Nigeria: rethinking the distributive justice theory

In Nigeria, the practice of disinheriting some heirs from intestate property is prevalent in the majority of south eastern states, especially amongst custodians who insist on age-long traditions. Despite Supreme Court decisions that have voided unequal and discriminatory inheritance in accordance with section 42(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), some of these customs continue to discriminate in intestate situations. This paper will adopt a doctrinal approach to give an overview of intestacy and the practice of intestate inheritance in south east Nigeria. It will identify two modern theories, and explain them in light of inheritance. The objective of the paper is to proffer a modern theory of law that accommodates a fair distribution of property in intestate circumstances while having regard to the maintenance of the legacy of the deceased. The work professes a more accommodating approach to the problem of discriminatory inheritance, and recommends amongst others, a capability dependent distributive justice theory which it believes is a modern, non-discriminatory, and fair approach to intestate issues in Nigeria.

Distributive sufficiency, inequality-blindness and disrespectful treatment

ABSTRACT Sufficientarian theories of distributive justice are often considered to be vulnerable to the ‘blindness to inequality and other values objection’. This objection targets their commitment to holding the moral irrelevance of requirements of justice above absolute thresholds of advantage, making them insufficiently sensitive to egalitarian moral concerns that do have relevance for justice. This paper explores how sufficientarians could reply to this objection. Particularly, I claim that, if we accept that the force of the aforementioned objection comes from relational, and not distributive, inequalities, different strategies are open for sufficientarians in order to be sensitive to these concerns. Drawing on recent literature about the relation between distributive and relational egalitarianism, and the possibility of reducing one to the other, strategies of ‘internalizing’ and ‘externalizing’ relational egalitarian concerns to a distributive sufficientarian framework are explored. In turn, I suggest that both strategies fail in their standard versions, but argue that a particular ‘hybrid view’ about justice is an attractive candidate for the sufficientarian theorist.

How Fairness Principles in the Climate Debate Relate to Theories of Distributive Justice

A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In particular, there are four distributional issues: how to allocate the total amount of greenhouse gases that can still be emitted, who should bear the costs of mitigation, who should bear the costs of adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and who should bear the costs of residual climate damage. Regarding these distributional issues the academic literature offers a plethora of fairness principles, such as ‘polluter pays’, ‘beneficiary pays’, ‘equal per capita rights’, ‘grandfathering’, ‘ability to pay’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Remarkably, there is a theoretical gap between these principles and the central theories of distributive justice in moral and political philosophy. As a consequence, it is unclear how these principles are related, whether they can be combined or are mutually exclusive, and what the fundamental underlying values are. This paper aims to elucidate that debate. Understanding the different underlying values may facilitate bridge-building and movement in negotiation positions.

Ang Isyu ng Katarungan sa Panahon ng Pandemya

Given the usually limited supply of resources needed to meet our healthcare needs during a pandemic, coming up with a fair system of prioritization by which such resources are to be distributed is both extremely urgent and morally obligatory. In the area of political morality, the issue of what counts as a fair allocation of resources, which may generally come in the form of being benefits or burdens, is referred to as the issue of distributive justice. In this essay, I look into the issue of distributive justice in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. After examining the basic claims of the various theories of distributive justice and how they apply to healthcare resource allocations, I then advance a framework for evaluating the moral justifiability of prioritization schemes for a fair allocation of healthcare resources, especially the vaccines, during the pandemic. The framework basically incorporates moral considerations based on welfare, capabilities, and opportunities. © 2021. Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.

Thresholds in Distributive Justice

AbstractDespite the prominence of thresholds in theories of distributive justice, there is no general account of what sort of role is played by the idea of a threshold within such theories. This has allowed an ongoing lack of clarity and misunderstanding around views that employ thresholds. In this article, I develop an account of the concept of thresholds in distributive justice. I argue that this concept contains three elements, which threshold views deploy when ranking possible distributions. These elements are (i) the level of the threshold, (ii) what constitutes the value of the threshold, and (iii) how benefits above and below the threshold must be allocated. I highlight three contributions that this particular account of thresholds makes: it clarifies the nature of the shift that occurs at the threshold; it resolves a common misunderstanding about headcount principles; and it shows how the arbitrariness objection can be met.

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

AbstractModels for supporting climate adaptation and mitigation planning, mostly in the form of Integrated Assessment Models, are poorly equipped for aiding questions related to fairness of adaptation and mitigation strategies, because they often disregard distributional outcomes. When evaluating policies using such models, the costs and benefits are typically aggregated across all actors in the system, and over the entire planning horizon. While a policy may be beneficial when considering the aggregate outcome, it can be harmful to some people, somewhere, at some point in time. The practice of aggregating over all actors and over time thus gives rise to problems of justice; it could also exacerbate existing injustices. While the literature discusses some of these injustices in ad‐hoc and case specific manner, a systematic approach for considering distributive justice in model‐based climate change planning is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by proposing 11 requirements that an Integrated Assessment Model should meet in order to enable the assessment of distributive justice in climate mitigation and adaptation policies. We derive the requirements from various ethical imperatives stemming from the theory of distributive justice. More specifically, we consider both intra‐generational (among people within one generation) and intergenerational (between generations) distributive justice. We investigate to what extent the 11 requirements are being met in recent model‐based climate planning studies, and highlight several directions for future research to advance the accounting for distributive justice in model‐based support for climate change planning.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

A DEFENSE OF HUMEAN PROPERTY THEORY

ABSTRACTTwo rival approaches to property rights dominate contemporary political philosophy: Lockean natural rights and egalitarian theories of distributive justice. This article defends a third approach, which can be traced to the work of David Hume. Unlike Lockean rights, Humean property rights are not grounded in pre-institutional moral entitlements. In contrast to the egalitarian approach, which begins with highly abstract principles of distributive justice, Humean theory starts with simple property conventions and shows how more complex institutions can be justified against a background of settled property rights. Property rights allow people to coordinate their use of scarce resources. For property rules to serve this function effectively, certain questions must be considered settled. Treating existing property entitlements as having prima facie validity facilitates cooperation between people who disagree about distributive justice. Lockean and egalitarian theories endorse moral claims that threaten to unsettle property conventions and undermine social cooperation.

More Cops, Less Trust? Disentangling the Relationship between Police Numbers and Trust in the Police in the European Union

Abstract This paper investigates the relationship between number of police officers per inhabitant and trust in the police in the EU. By compiling data sources from the Eurobarometer, the Eurostat and the Corruption Perception Index, we test whether the number of police officers per inhabitant is a robust predictor of trust in the police on the country level. While there is a strong negative correlation between the two variables that justifies stating that the police are trusted most in countries where the number of police is minimal, controlling for relevant covariates reveals that the correlation is technically spurious. In line with distributive justice theory, perceptions of corruption in the respective countries explain most of the variation in trust in the police, which completely levels the influence of number of police officers per inhabitant. Implications for research and policy are discussed at the end of the paper.