Theories Of Distributive Justice Research Articles

The Political Ethics of Health

This paper seeks to provide an overview of some of the main areas of debate that have emerged in recent years at the interface between theories of justice and health care. First, the paper considers various positions as to what the index of justice with respect to health ought to be. It warns on practical and principled grounds against conceptual inflation of the notion of "health" as it appears in theories of distributive justice. Second, it considers how various standards according to which goods ought to be distributed in a just society apply to debates within health care.

Redistribution between Rich and Poor Countries

The topic of redistribution between rich and poor countries opens a can of worms. This paper first inquires into what we mean by some of these words and second, considers the role of taxation in redistribution. It briefly considers the various modes of redistribution to address poverty and inequality, including the role of taxation, within a country before turning to consider modes of redistribution between rich and poor countries. The paper then turns to consider whether we are asking the right question. Should the question, really, be about redistribution between rich and poor people? In an increasingly global and digital era, how might we reconsider the role of taxation in achieving this? The paper briefly touches on state-based and cosmopolitan theories of international distributive justice, before considering whether we need to unpack the very concept of the country, nation-state, or government to achieve the transnational provision of public goods and redistribution between rich and poor.

Is Maximin egalitarian?

According to the Maximin principle of distributive justice, one outcome is more just than another if the worst off individual in the first outcome is better off than the worst off individual in the second. This is often interpreted as a highly egalitarian principle, and, more specifically, as a highly egalitarian way of balancing a concern with equality against a concern with efficiency. But this interpretation faces a challenge: why should a concern with efficiency and equality lead us to a concern only for the very worst off? Egalitarian proponents of Maximin tend to meet this challenge by showing that it possible to formally derive Maximin from surprisingly weak conditions relating efficiency and equality to justice. But in this paper, I argue that this reply fails. The issue is not that the proofs are invalid, but instead that every existing proof of Maximin transforms into an impossibility result as soon as we realize that any reasonable conception of equality must satisfy a certain formal property. The upshot is that even if it is possible to defend Maximin on other grounds, there is no known way to defend it on the grounds that it balances a concern with equality against a concern for efficiency. Further, more general implications of this result for egalitarian theories of distributive justice are also explored.

Introduction: education and migration

ABSTRACTThis introduction expounds educational problems that arise from transnational migration. It argues that it is high time to critically analyze normative issues of and in education under conditions of globalization because dominant approaches in normative philosophy of education tend to suffer from both a nationalist bias and a sedentary bias. The contributions to this special issue address normative problems pertaining to migration-related education from a variety of ethical and philosophical perspectives, including analytic applied ethics, continental philosophy, care ethics, Hegelian philosophy, the capability approach and theories of distributive justice. They discuss the education of both citizens and migrants in the receiving society as well as in the country of origin, focusing on ethical issues pertaining to access to education as well as to the content of educational programs.

Towards Accountability: The Articulation and Formalization of Fairness in Machine Learning

The working paper has a twofold aim. First, it will consider how theories of distributive justice have informed, and may inform future, developments and research within the field of machine learning. Under the first section, the paper will analyze current fair machine learning approaches. It will be considered whether these approaches are sufficiently adequate in dealing with the ethical concerns that are generally associated with machine learning, and the contextual challenges brought forth through the deployment of these techniques. After this primary assessment, the paper will discuss how theories of distributive justice might enable a better understanding of fairness and how notions of fairness could help contribute towards future fair machine learning efforts. Second, the paper will establish how the articulation and formalization of fairness, based upon notions found within theories of justice, could (indirectly) increase the accountability of actors who make use of machine learning systems.

HEALTH(CARE) AND THE TEMPORAL SUBJECT

Many assume that theories of distributive justice must obviously take people’s lifetimes, and only their lifetimes, as the relevant period across which we distribute. Although the question of the temporal subject has risen in prominence, it is still relatively underdeveloped, particularly in the sphere of health and healthcare. This paper defends a particular view, “momentary sufficientarianism,” as being an important element of healthcare justice. At the heart of the argument is a commitment to pluralism about justice, where theorizing about just principles demands paying attention to the role particular goods play in our lives. This means that different approaches to the temporal subject—as well as other relevant issues—may be appropriate for different goods, including different goods within healthcare. In particular, the paper discusses two central goods targeted by healthcare: life-saving and pain relief. The view is offered as complementary to, rather than competitive with, lifetime approaches. As such, the paper finishes by considering how a pluralist approach, which engages both with people’s lives as a whole and with their states at particular moments, can reconcile the potentially competing claims in healthcare that emerge from these two perspectives.

A Theory of Distributive Justice to Philanthropy

A Theory of Distributive Justice to Philanthropy

Egalitarianism under Severe Uncertainty

Decision-makers face severe uncertainty when they are not in a position to assign precise probabilities to all of the relevant possible outcomes of their actions. Such situations are common — novel medical treatments and policies addressing climate change are two examples. Many decision-makers respond to such uncertainty in a cautious manner and are willing to incur a cost to avoid it. There are good reasons for taking such an uncertainty-averse attitude to be permissible. However, little work has been done to incorporate it into an egalitarian theory of distributive justice. We aim to remedy this lack. We put forward a novel, uncertainty-averse egalitarian view. We analyse when the aims of reducing inequality and limiting the burdens of severe uncertainty are congruent and when they conflict, and highlight practical implications of the proposed view. We also demonstrate that if uncertainty aversion is permissible, then utilitarians must relinquish a favourite argument against egalitarianism.

Just testing

Abstract Justice has been the topic of comparatively few papers in the fields of applied linguistics or language assessment. This may be due to the lack of a clear and agreed-upon definition on the one hand, or to the difficulty of operationalizing justice for test development on the other. This paper aims to remedy both problems by discussing prior conceptualizations of justice and by introducing six justice principles, which are based on theories of distributive justice that focus on human rights, fairness, equal opportunity, and dignity. The overarching aim of this paper is to advance the debate on justice, and to provide a consistent way of considering ethical and moral dilemmas that language testers face today.

Fairness in Allocating the Global Emissions Budget

One central question of climate justice is how to fairly allocate remaining ‘carbon space’ or a global emissions budget. Some commentators hold that the idea of fairness is hopelessly equivocal on this point. Others claim that we need a complete theory of distributive justice to answer the question. This paper argues that on the contrary, given only weak assumptions about fairness, we can show that fairness requires an allocation that is at least as ‘prioritarian’ as the equal per capita view. Since even the equal per capita view is more pri-oritarian than is politically feasible, fairness is univocal enough for all practical purposes.

Modern Money Theory and Distributive Justice

:Modern money theory is a conjecture concerning fiscal spending and the nature of money. I show that modern money theory provides two interesting insights into distributive justice that have not been addressed in the recent Anglo-American distributive justice literature: (i) that the nature of a sovereign fiat currency allows for some distributive conflicts to be avoided; and (ii) that recent Anglo-American distributive justice theories assume that the economy is at capacity. Based on this, I consider whether the policy results of modern money theory can help foster a sense of justice.

Liberalism, Markets, and Responsibility

The specter of individual responsibility is ever present in many liberal theories of distributive justice, yet these “responsibilitarian” arguments ignore the unpredictability of markets, misunderstand the role of luck that nearly everyone faces in a market economy, and overvalue (while not defining) prudent or responsible behavior. Nearly all economic behavior in market societies is risky—there is no baseline of prudent or responsible behavior. Further, the idea of individual responsibility is normative in ways that responsibility theorists fail to recognize; they rarely take into account our responsibility to other people, like our obligations to one’s spouse, parents, and children. I argue here that instead of focusing on when an individual is acting responsibly or not, contemporary theories of justice should focus on the ways in which political and social institutions can help people be responsible, in both econonomic and noneconomic ways.

A Solution to the Crimean Crisis: Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty Applied to Russia, Ukraine and Crimea

Sovereignty is intrinsic to conflict in international relations. There are various sovereignty disputes around the world caught between legal and political limbo, the status quo and continuous tension, with various negative consequences for all the parties involved. It is increasingly clear that the available remedies have been less than successful, and that a peaceful and definitive solution is needed. The essay considers how theories of distributive justice, and particularly the hypothetical thought experiments proposed by Rawlsian theory, can be used productively with the concept of sovereignty and explores the possibility of a solution for sovereignty conflicts such as the Crimean case by the application of a Rawlsian methodology.

Political reconciliation at the level of global governance

ABSTRACTThis article applies the idea of political reconciliation to current debates on the role and legitimacy of global governance. My underlying thesis is that the idea of reconciliation fits better with the non-ideal circumstances of global injustice. To this end, I will first of all develop a three-tiered model of political reconciliation and introduce the related concept of restorative justice. I will then look at some of the most obvious forms of international and global injustice – historical injustice, economic exploitation, and political domination – and argue that a normative theory of political reconciliation provides better proposals for feasible global governance reforms than do theories of corrective, retributive, or distributive justice. Finally, I will make a few comments on the role of political philosophy as a medium of ‘narrative reconciliation’.

Israeli Groups’ Entitlement to Social Rights: Views of Israeli Jewish and Arab Teachers

This study is based on distributive justice theory and research that it has produced as well as on accumulated knowledge about sociocultural reality in Israel. It demonstrates a situation in which different groups are excluded to varying degrees from the Israeli moral community as a consequence of the prevailing Jewish pioneering ethos of distributive justice. A sample of Jewish and Arab Israeli teachers was used. Out of the seven groups defined a priori, the Jewish subsample recognized five and ordered them along the anticipated social-exclusion dimension, from least to most excluded, as follows: (1) Ashkenazi/Mizrahi; (2) Haredi/Ole; (3) Druze; (4) Arabs; and (5) Foreign workers. In contrast, the distinction made by Arab respondents was dichotomous, between the Jews and the Arabs/Foreign workers, and not clear-cut at that. Furthermore, the Arab subsample ranked their “ingroup” as the most strongly entitled to social rights. The results obtained are attributed to the bifurcation of the Israeli citizenship discourse, which comprises, as an alternative to the Western egalitarian civil normative framework, an ethnorepublican discourse that implicitly promotes inequality (Shafir and Peled 2002).

Distributive justice and the harm to medical professionals fighting epidemics

The exposure of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to risks in the context of epidemics is significant. While traditional medical ethics offers the thought that these dangers may limit...

Disaggregated pluralistic theories of global distributive justice – a critique

ABSTRACTPluralistic theories of global distributive justice aim at justifying a plurality of principles for various subglobal contexts of distributive justice. Helena de Bres has recently proposed the class of disaggregated pluralistic theories, according to which we should refrain from defending principles that apply to the shared background conditions of such subglobal contexts. This article argues that if one does not justify how these background conditions should be regulated by principles of a just global basic structure, then the (apparent) realization of the principles that are justified for the subglobal contexts of distributive justice can erode and undermine justice over time. For example, the realization of justice in international trade might undermine climate justice, at least if climate justice requires increasing tariffs (in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions) but justice in international trade calls for reducing tariffs (in order to create a level playing field). Principles of a just global basic structure would have to ensure that such justice-eroding spillover effects from one to another context of justice do not occur. Finally, the article responds critically to de Bres’ objections that an account of a just global basic structure is too idealistic, not action guiding, and superfluous.

Interscholastic Competitive Balance: An Examination of State Athletic Association Administrators

While competitive balance literature is robust when addressing professional sport from an economic perspective, little empirical work has focused on understanding what shapes interscholastic competitive balance policies. Using the theory of distributive justice as a framework, the purpose of this multiple case study was to examine the perceptions of top administrators regarding sociocultural influences on interscholastic competitive balance. Qualitative interview data collected from six state commissioners/executive directors revealed four predominant findings: (a) policy is driven by a philosophical approach that is aligned with the theory of distributive justice; (b) an overemphasis on winning strongly influences policy; (c) political influence through legal threats and state educational policy shapes committee decisions; and (d) the prevailing challenges of policy creation include school size, geography, public/nonpublic status, tradition, sport-specific characteristics, and lack of knowledge. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Revisiting the Common Ownership of the Earth: A Democratic Critique of Global Distributive Justice Theories

Many theories of global distributive justice are based on the assumption that all humans hold common ownership of the earth. As the earth is finite and our actions interconnect, we need a system of justice that regulates the potential appropriation of the common earth to ensure fairness. According to these theories, imposing limits and distributive obligations on private and public property arrangements may be the best mechanism for governing common ownership. We present a critique of the assumption that this issue can be solved within the private–public property regime, arguing that the boundaries of this regime should not be taken for granted and that the growing literature on the democratic commons movement suggests how this can be accomplished. We consider that, if the earth is defined as a common, the private– public property paradigm must be open to questioning, and democratic commoners’ activities should be considered.

The Luck Egalitarianism of G.A. Cohen - A Reply to David Miller

AbstractThe late G.A. Cohen is routinely considered a founding father of luck egalitarianism, a prominent responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. David Miller argues that Cohen’s considered beliefs on distributive justice are not best understood as luck egalitarian. While the relationship between distributive justice and personal responsibility plays an important part in Cohen’s work, Miller maintains that it should be considered an isolated theme confined to Cohen’s exchange with Dworkin. We should not understand the view Cohen defends in this exchange as Cohen’s considered view. Accepting this thesis would change both our understanding of Cohen’s political philosophy and many recent luck egalitarian contributions. Miller’s argument offers an opportunity to reassess Cohen’s writings as a whole. Ultimately, however, the textual evidence against Miller’s argument is overwhelming. Cohen clearly considers the exchange with Dworkin to be about egalitarianism as such rather than about the best responsibility-sensitive version of egalitarianism. Furthermore, Cohen often offers luck egalitarian formulations of his own view outside of the exchange with Dworkin and uses luck egalitarianism as an independent yardstick for evaluating principles and distributions.