DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ‘EQUALITY OF OUTCOME’ AND ‘EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY’ AND OUTLINE HOW LIBERALS AND SOCIALISTS HAVE APPROACHED…
In Thomas Sowell’s article, “The Fallacy of Fair”, he makes it clear that he believes many of the people who utilize the term fair in politics do not truly understand it’s meaning. He urges the idea that society is often blamed for the results of the handicaps that life bestows upon groups or people, leading society to attempt to level out the playing field for those on the bottom end of the totem pole. This concept in itself portrays the real injustice considering it skews the reality of a group's true situation, causing said group to think they are better off than they are. Evidently, this robs them of the incentive to identify the true problem and to improve (Sowell, 2010).…
Use this document to help you design your experiment about one of the scenarios from the activity. Copy and paste the template then insert your information for each of the steps of the scientific method.…
Distributive polices come from the policy maker directly to the beneficiary. For example, certain tax polices have been established to ensure that the higher socio-economic class does not have to pay so much in taxes through the itemization of exemptions. One example is a corporation allowing giving students scholarships for college, or giving money to charity would be a major benefit. Nevertheless, redistributive policies are designed to promote equity in the delivery of goods and services. These polices are only evident when there is a dysfunction in the marketplace or the human social domain. Redistributive policies come in the form of legislative acts, mandates, court decisions, or executive orders. Therefore, due to the lack of support to the lower socio-economic class, distributive polices are a quick fix to a dysfunctional society. For example, the lower classes and poorer school districts believe the No Child Left Behind Act served no purpose but political rhetoric and promises that were never delivered. In addition, not every redistributive policy ends up helping the lower classes, especially at the local level. Redistribution should always be dealt with at the national level because it does not promote long- term economic development of the community. Nevertheless, social class is a major factor of whether an individual will receive…
Distributive Justice Robert Nozick From Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 149-182, with omissions. Copyright @ 1974 by Basic Books, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, a subsidiary of Perseus Books Group, LLC. The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people's rights. Yet many persons have put forth reasons purporting to justify a more extensive state. It is impossible within the compass of this book to examine all the reasons that have been put forth. Therefore, I shall focus upon those generally acknowledged to be most weighty and influential, to see precisely wherein they fail. In this chapter we consider the claim that a more extensive state is justified, because necessary (or the best instrument) to achieve distributive justice; in the next chapter we shall take up diverse other claims. The term "distributive justice" is not a neutral one. Hearing the term "distribution," most people presume that some thing or mechanism uses some principle or criterion to give out a supply of things. Into this process of distributing shares some error may have crept. So it is an open question, at least, whether redistribution should take place; whether we should do again what has already been done once, though poorly. However, we are not in the position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now makes last minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting. There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons. There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares than there is a distributing of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry. The total…
1. Suppose you’re in a conversation and the person you are with claims to know that God exists (or that God does not exist—it’s up to you). What does such a knowledge claim amount to? In other words, what sorts of conditions have to be satisfied for such a knowledge claim to be legitimate? Do you think such a person could meet those conditions? Why? Be sure to discuss not only the classical model of knowledge, but also the challenges posed to it by basic beliefs and Gettier counterexamples. (Be sure to give a Gettier-type example and explain its relevance to the knowledge issue.)…
The promising new democratic age gave birth to the concept of equality. Equality is a concept cherished…
A socially just and equal society is arguably one of the most important things a community can hope to establish for itself, as every human being has a set of basic rights that demand to be valued and understood. However, the way those rights are interpreted is theoretically an objective concept which varies from religion to religion, from government to government, and from philosopher to philosopher. A select number of societies have either subverted, or in some instances, completely ignored, the practice altogether. As a result of this, the “true” meaning of social justice has become incredibly blurred. While a general understanding of the idea has been established in the minds of most individuals,…
The issue of distributive justice is relevant in our society due to current thoughts on economic inequality in politics. The political philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick have differing views when it comes to the topic of distributive justice. This analyze the positions of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, finding that Nozick’s view of distribution is preferable to Rawls’ difference principle because people deserve to keep what they earn and their earnings should not be taken away from them because that would be a violation of their personal liberties.…
This contrasts with the other definitions of equality which have been perceived as anti-liberal and anti-democratic. This extensive research and use of equality means that the concept has a sense of familiarity. It has developed what John Gerring calls a resonance, as it has become embedded within society with positive connotations. This resonance and familiarity has led to becoming one of the most popular ‘good’ concepts in the last few…
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is based on the idea of distributive justice, that is, how justice should be distributed to each individual within a society. Rawls’ theory contrasts with the theory of utilitarianism, because it values the welfare of each individual over the ‘greater good’, and does not believe that one person should sacrifice their own needs or desires in order to benefit a larger number of people. This has led Rawls to develop the idea of the ‘Original Position,’ a hypothetical social contract, which Rawls believes would lead to an ideal society of ‘justice as fairness.’ (Rawls, A Liberal Theory of Justice, pp 577, para 1.) Throughout this essay, I will outline Rawls’ theory of the Original Position, and the main two principles of justice that make up his theory. I will discuss two common objections against this theory, and possible responses that Rawls would have to these objections.…
They can vary in what is subject to distribution (income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, utility, etc.); in the nature of the subjects of the distribution (natural persons, groups of persons, reference classes, etc.); and on what basis distribution should be made (equality, maximization, according to individual characteristics, according to free transactions, etc.). This entry will focus on principles of distributive justice designed to cover the distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity among individuals in a society. Although principles of this kind have been the dominant source of Anglo-American debate about distributive justice over the last four decades, there are other important distributive justice questions, some of which are covered by other entries in the encyclopedia. These include questions of distributive justice at the global level rather than just at the national level (see justice: international), distributive justice across generations (see justice: intergenerational) and how the topic of distributive justice can be approached, not as a set of principles but as a virtue (see justice: as a virtue). Although the numerous proposed distributive principles vary along different dimensions, for simplicity, they are broadly grouped here. It is important to keep in mind though that this involves oversimplication, particularly with respect to the criticisms of each of the groups of principles. The criticisms may not apply to every principle in the group. The issue of how we are to understand and respond to criticisms of distributive principles is discussed briefly in the section on methodology at the end (see…
Distributive justice concerns the proper and equal distribution of goods and attention, mostly from a monetary basis such as taxes, compensation and re-imbursement. This distribution is most often based on the needs and merits of individuals and organizations. The difficulty lies in deciding how and to whom allocations are dispersed as well as fairness of disbursement of funds based on individual and organizational entitlements. It mainly deals with what is fair monetary compensation for labor and goods. It also provides checks and balances when determining these values. Safeguards are put in place in order to deter things such as discrimination and equal rights for all, weather the issue being health care, employment or payment compensation.…
Income equality is the equal distribution of income amongst the different classes and households, and is a main government objective, the fifth one, as well as full Unemployment, price stability, equilibrium of balance of payments, and Economic growth. As there is always some amount of income inequality, this determines the classes in society, with the aim to reduce this benefiting the lower class, the poor, s opposed to the upper class, the wealthy. Redistribution of income, the method by which the government aims to improve and achieve income equality, is where the government ‘takes’ part of the income earned by the wealthy and ‘gives’ it to the poor, on far lower incomes. It is realistically impossible to achieve complete income equality, as there will always be some degree of difference in amount of income, based on skills, rank in firm, as otherwise people have no incentive to strive for something more ass they will end up earning the same. Hence, it is difficult to pinpoint the level where the income distribution among households is deemed ‘fair’ and who, if anyone, actually has a final say or the most valued point of view when determining this.…
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).…