Res Publica 7 (2) (2001)
|Abstract||The conception of social justice as equality is defended in this paper by examining what may appear to be two inegalitarian conceptions of justice, as distribution according to desert and as distribution according to need. It is argued that claims of just entitlement arise within a context of reciprocal co-operation for mutual benefit. Within such a context there are special cases where it can be said that those who contribute more deserve more, and that those who need more should get more, but those claims themselves presuppose a norm of equal contribution and equal benefit.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Moriarty (2002). Desert and Distributive Justice in a Theory of Justice. Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (1):131–143.
David Schmidtz (2006). Elements of Justice. Cambridge University Press.
Jeffrey Moriarty (2005). The Epistemological Argument Against Desert. Utilitas 17 (2):205-221.
Chong-Fai Chan & 陳創輝, Liberty, Equality and Justice : A Critique of Kai Nielsen's Radical Egalitarianism.
Kristján Kristjánsson (2005). A Utilitarian Justification of Desert in Distributive Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (2):147-170.
Carl Knight (2011). Responsibility, Desert, and Justice. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press.
Peter Vallentyne (2003). Brute Luck Equality and Desert. In Sabrina Olsaretti (ed.), Desert and Justice.
Serena Olsaretti (ed.) (2003). Desert and Justice. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #49,656 of 549,198 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )
How can I increase my downloads?