Distributive justice facts for kids

Distributive justice is all about making sure that resources, opportunities, and benefits are shared fairly among everyone in a society. It looks at how things like wealth, income, and social standing are divided up. The main idea is to figure out what a "fair" way to share things looks like.

This topic is really important in philosophy and social sciences. Many thinkers have come up with different ideas about how to achieve fair sharing. These ideas help us think about how societies, governments, and economies should be set up to make sure benefits and responsibilities are distributed justly. Most ideas about distributive justice assume that resources are limited. This means we need rules to decide how to share things when many people want them.

In social psychology, distributive justice means whether people feel that rewards and costs are shared fairly within a group. For example, if some workers do more but get the same pay, people might feel it's not fair. To decide if something is fair, people often compare it to their group's usual ways of sharing. If things are shared according to the group's rules, then it's seen as fair.

What are the different ways to share things fairly?

Donelson R. Forsyth described five main ways, or "norms," that groups use to share things:

• Equality: This means everyone gets the same amount, no matter how much they contributed. For example, if you contributed 20% to a group project, you'd still get the same reward as someone who contributed 60%.
• Equity: This means people get rewards based on what they put in. So, if you worked really hard (put in a lot of time, money, or effort), you should get more than someone who did very little. Larger groups often prefer this method.
• Power: People with more authority, status, or control in a group get more than those in lower positions.
• Need: Those who need resources the most should get them. This means giving more to people who don't have enough, even if they didn't contribute much.
• Responsibility: People who have more should share their resources with those who have less.
• Entitlement: This idea suggests that people deserve certain resources or benefits because of their legal or moral rights. It doesn't matter how much they contributed or how much they need.
• Utilitarian: This idea says that resources should be shared in a way that creates the most overall happiness or well-being for society as a whole. It focuses on the biggest good for the most people, rather than just individual fairness.

Important ideas about fair sharing

Here are three of the most well-known ideas about distributive justice. This list isn't everything, but these are very important ones.

What is justice as fairness?

In his famous book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls introduced his idea of justice as fairness. It has three main parts:

• Everyone should have equal rights and freedoms.
• Everyone should have equal opportunities.
• Any economic differences should be arranged to help those who are least well-off the most.

How do society's rules create fairness?

Rawls thought that justice comes from the "basic structure" of society. This means the main rules that shape our social and economic systems, and how the government works. These rules affect everyone's life chances. Rawls believed that these rules should be based on principles that any smart, self-interested person would agree to, if they wanted to work together fairly in society.

What is the original position?

Rawls came up with the idea of an original position. Imagine a group of people deciding how to share important things like freedoms, opportunities, and control over resources. These people are smart and want to do what's best for themselves. But they also have a basic sense of right and wrong. Rawls said that if they follow a fair process, the rules they agree on will be just.

What is the veil of ignorance?

To make sure the process is fair, Rawls imagined these people are behind a veil of ignorance. This veil hides their personal details. They don't know their talents, their goals, or, most importantly, where they will end up in society (rich or poor, smart or not). However, they do know general things about how society and the economy work.

Because they don't know their own place, they can't make rules that only benefit themselves. They have to think about everyone. This means they will protect those who are worst off, because they might end up in that group themselves. But they also won't stop others from succeeding, in case they end up in a higher position. This way, the rules they create are fair for everyone.

What are the basic rules for fair sharing?

In this "original position," the main goal is to make sure everyone has the basic things they need to achieve their goals, whatever those goals might be. With this in mind, Rawls suggested two main rules for fair sharing:

The first rule is the liberty principle. This means everyone should have equal access to basic rights and freedoms. Each person should have as much freedom as possible, as long as it doesn't stop others from having the same freedoms. It's about both having your own freedoms and respecting others' freedoms.

The second rule is the difference principle. This rule explains how social and economic differences should be set up. First, Rawls said that these differences should benefit everyone, especially those who are least well-off in society. Second, all jobs and positions should be open to everyone.

These two rules are then prioritized:

• Basic freedoms can only be limited if it helps protect freedom for everyone, or if people who have less freedom agree to it.
• Differences in opportunity or wealth are only okay if they help those with fewer opportunities, or if they reduce hardship for those who don't usually benefit.

What is utilitarianism?

In 1789, Jeremy Bentham wrote a book called An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that any action that increases overall happiness or well-being in society is good, and any action that decreases it is bad. This means utilitarianism focuses on the results of actions, not so much on how those results are achieved. This idea of making things as good as possible for the most people also applies to how we think about justice.

How do we measure well-being?

While the basic idea of utilitarianism seems simple, there's been a lot of debate about how to define and measure "well-being" or "welfare." Because of this, utilitarianism includes many different sub-ideas. How you define well-being changes how you apply utilitarianism to fair sharing.

Bentham first thought of it using a "hedonistic calculus," which is like a way to calculate pleasure and pain. John Stuart Mill later focused on intellectual pleasures as the best way to increase society's well-being. Other thinkers, like Aristotle, tried to make a list of things everyone needs for a good life. Still others focus on how happy and satisfied people feel in their own lives.

What is egalitarianism?

Egalitarianism is based on the idea that all human beings have equal worth and moral status. It focuses on treating everyone equally, both by the government and by each other. Egalitarianism looks at the process of sharing. It asks if society and its rules are set up fairly, rather than just looking at the final outcome. It pays special attention to how things people can't choose (like where they are born) might limit their opportunities. As Elizabeth Anderson said, the goal of egalitarian justice is to "create a community in which people stand in relation of equality to others."

A big question for egalitarians is what kind of equality to aim for. This is because trying to achieve one type of equality might lead to inequality in another area. For example, "strict egalitarianism" means giving everyone the same amount of resources. But this might mean that even if sharing things unequally would make everyone better off, or some better off and no one worse off, strict equality is still chosen. Critics say this can lead to situations where no one is as well off as they could be. So, some egalitarians focus on "equality of opportunity" instead of just equal outcomes.

Some thinkers combine different ideas within egalitarianism. For example, Roland Pierik suggests that instead of just fixing unfairness after it happens, egalitarians should focus on creating systems that give everyone truly equal opportunities from the start. This means building different kinds of institutions that prevent unfairness, rather than just trying to fix it later.

How does fair sharing affect us?

What are the results of fair sharing?

When people feel that things are shared fairly, it can improve how well they perform, especially when it comes to being efficient and productive. If employees feel their workplace is fair, they are more likely to do extra things to help the organization, even if it's not part of their job. Also, if employees feel things are unfair, they are more likely to leave the organization.

Fairness and wealth

Distributive justice looks at whether the way goods are shared among people in a society at a certain time feels acceptable. Not everyone who thinks about consequences wants a perfectly equal society. But they all want to achieve the best possible results, or the best possible way of sharing wealth.

What is environmental justice?

In terms of the environment, distributive justice means fairly sharing the risks, impacts, and benefits of technology and the environment in a society. This includes things like being exposed to dangerous waste, losing land, or facing violence. Distributive justice is a key idea in environmental justice because studies show that these burdens can cause health problems, lower quality of life, and reduce property values.

Discussions about the environment often focus on how environmental problems and rules unfairly affect different groups. For example, the negative effects of environmental damage often fall more heavily on countries in the Global South, while the benefits go mostly to the Global North.

Fair sharing in politics

Distributive justice suggests that societies have a duty to help people in need, and individuals have a duty to help others. Supporters of distributive justice often connect it to human rights. Many governments deal with issues of distributive justice, especially in countries where different ethnic groups live in separate areas. For example, after apartheid ended, South Africa had to deal with re-sharing resources to make things more fair.

Who has been inspired by distributive justice?

Distributive justice is also a very important part of the Catholic Church's social teaching. It has inspired people like Dorothy Day and Pope John Paul II.

Why do some people disagree with distributive justice?

Friedrich von Hayek was a famous critic of distributive justice, especially in Western democracies after World War II. He thought that "social justice" and "distributive justice" were meaningless and impossible to achieve. He argued that in a free market system, outcomes happen naturally, not because someone planned them. So, trying to force a certain distribution of wealth goes against how a free market works.

In his book Road to Serfdom, Hayek said that a basic level of food, shelter, and clothing should be available to everyone. He believed this kind of security is fine because it doesn't require the government to control the market. However, he worried that if the government tries to provide too much security, people might value security more than freedom.

Hayek believed that justice only applies to individual actions that follow common rules. He thought that "social justice" or "distributive justice" requires a "command economy" where someone in charge decides everything, which he saw as the opposite of a free market. He also argued that it's impossible to achieve distributive justice in a free market because no one person can know all the information needed to decide what's fair for everyone. Finally, Hayek said that the inequalities that come from free individuals interacting are different from inequalities caused by a government authority. He preferred the former.

What is the libertarian view?

Robert Nozick is a key thinker in the libertarian view of distributive justice. In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he argued that the term "distributive justice" is misleading because there isn't a central person or group distributing things. What each person gets, they get through their own work, by trading with others, or as a gift. He famously said, "there is no more a distributing or distribution of shares than there is a distribution of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry."

This means that there shouldn't be a specific pattern or goal for how things are shared. Nozick believed that if people acquire things fairly and trade them fairly, then whatever distribution results will be just. There's no need for a specific model or standard to follow.

See also

In Spanish: Justicia distributiva para niños