Distributive Justice

Given the sordid history of injustices linking genetics to race and ethnicity, considerations of justice are central to ensuring the responsible development of precision medicine programmes around the world. While considerations of justice may be in tension with other areas of concern, such as scientific value or privacy, there are also be tensions between different aspects of justice. This paper focuses on three particular aspects of justice relevant to this context: social justice, distributive justice and human rights. The implications of (...) each for the use of race and ethnicity in precision medicine is described, along with how they intersect and potentially conflict with one another. By attending to these intersections, we aim to enrich and add nuance to debates over how best to proceed with precision medicine initiatives. (shrink)

This article investigates the relationship between distributive injustice and political obligation within the confines of the fair-play theory of political obligation. More specifically, it asks ho...

This paper addresses a theory of intergenerational justice that we refer to as “needs-based sufficientarianism”. According to needs-based sufficientarianism, the present generation ought to enable future generations to meet their basic needs — for example, their needs for drinkable water, food and health care. Our aim is to explain and defend this theory in a programmatic way. First, we introduce what we regard as the most plausible variant of needs-based sufficientarianism. Then we argue that this variant is superior to several (...) alternative ways of thinking about intergenerational justice. In particular, we defend basic needs as the currency of intergenerational justice and sufficiency as its principle. Our arguments for these claims are neither fully comprehensive nor fully conclusive. Yet, we hope that they suffice to show that needs-based sufficientarianism is a major contender, with significant pro tanto advantages over other views. (shrink)

Four ethical values — maximizing benefits, treating equally, promoting and rewarding instrumental value, and giving priority to the worst off — yield six specific recommendations for allocating medical resources in the Covid-19 pandemic: maximize benefits; prioritize health workers; do not allocate on a first-come, first-served basis; be responsive to evidence; recognize research participation; and apply the same principles to all Covid-19 and non–Covid-19 patients.

(English below) Rechte Intellektuelle berufen sich oft auf Nietzsches Konzept der Sklavenmoral, um damit ihre Kritik an ‚political correctness‘ zu untermauern. Diese Verschaltung von Nietzsches Sklavenmoral und ‚PC‘-Kritik ist zutreffend, wie die systematische Analyse ihrer gemeinsamen Elemente zeigt, die zu einer Neubeschreibung von ‚PC‘-Kritik als Privilegienverteidigung führt. Im Gegensatz zur rechtsnietzscheanischen ‚PC‘-Kritik zeigt der linksnietzscheanische Begriff des privilegienkritischen ‚politischen Urteilens‘, dass Politik ein Kampf um Macht und Ansprüche ist, wobei der politische Raum und seine Diskurse immer verregelt und ein Verteilungssystem (...) für Ressourcen und Privilegien sind. Deshalb ist es für eine emanzipatorische Position angebracht, die etablierten Normen kritisch zu hinterfragen und politische Projekte, die sie emanzipativ umschreiben wollen, zu unterstützen. Weil ‚PC‘ als emanzipatives politisches Urteilen Privilegien abbaut, ist es kein zu vermeidender Nebeneffekt, sondern ihr vernünftiger Kern, wenn Privilegierte davon eingeschränkt werden. Der Linksnietzscheanismus hilft, nicht von rechter Aggression überrascht zu werden und ihr entsprechend kämpferisch durch strikte Normsetzung zu begegnen. Right-wing intellectuals often invoke Nietzsche's concept of slave morality to underpin their criticism of 'political correctness' ('PC'). This interconnection of Nietzsche's slave morality and 'PC' criticism is correct, as a systematic analysis of their common elements shows, which leads to a new description of 'PC' criticism as a defense of privilege. In contrast to the right-wing Nietzschean 'PC' critique, the left-wing Nietzschean concept of a privilege-critical ‘political judgement' understands politics as a struggle for power, in which the space of the political and related discourses are always already regulated and determine the conditions under which resources and privileges are distributed. Therefore, it is appropriate for an emancipatory position to critically question the established norms and to support political projects that aim to rewrite them. Because 'PC', as emancipative political judgement, dismantles privileges, its restricting of the privileged is not a side effect to be avoided but one of its reasonable core effects. Left-wing Nietzscheanism helps to avoid being surprised by right-wing aggression and to counter it vigorously by setting strict political norms. (shrink)

Eriarvoisuuspuheella voidaan viitata moniin eri asioihin. Usein sillä tarkoitetaan hyvien asioiden epätasaista jakautumista. Ei kuitenkaan ole itsessään huono asia, että joillakin menee paremmin kuin toisilla. Silloin kun taloudellinen eriarvoisuus on ongelma, kyse on sen syistä tai seurauksista. On kuitenkin myös itsessään moraalisesti ongelmallinen eriarvoisuuden muoto, jota kutsun erivertaisuudeksi. Siinä on kyse joidenkin herruudesta ja ylivallasta toisiin nähden tai siitä, että joitakin suositaan järjestelmällisesti toisten kustannuksella. Erivertaisuus ei sovi yhteen jokaisen yksilön moraalisen tasa-arvoisuuden kanssa, joten se on itsessään huono asia. Oikeudenmukaisuus (...) vaatii kansalaisten tasavertaisuutta, jota merkittävä taloudellinen eriarvoisuus uhkaa monella tavalla. (shrink)

How should governments balance saving people from very large individual disease burdens (such as an early death) against saving them from middling burdens (such as erectile dysfunction) and minor burdens (such as nail fungus)? This chapter considers this question through an analysis of a priority-setting proposal in the Netherlands, on which avoiding a multitude of middling burdens takes priority over saving one person from early death, but no number of very small burdens can take priority over avoiding one death. It (...) argues that there is some, albeit imperfect, evidence of substantial public support for such a policy. Furthermore, it provides a principled rationale for it in terms of respect for the person who faces the largest burden. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Governments are increasingly using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate policy interventions. Such studies are often understood to provide the highest quality evidence regarding the causal efficacy of an intervention. While randomization plays an essential epistemic role in the context of policy RCTs however, it also plays an important distributive role. By randomly assigning participants to either the intervention or control arm of an RCT, people are subjected to different policies and so, often, to different types and levels of benefits. (...) In this paper, I aim to identify a set of conditions under which it is permissible, in the context of government policy experiments, for investigators to randomly assign participants to intervention and control arms of policy RCTs. I argue first that random assignment is permissible in cases where investigators occupy a state of genuine equipoise regarding all arms of the experiment and the policy to which citizens have a claim of justice to be subject. I then defend a set of conditions under which random assignment is permissible in cases where investigators know that one or more arms of a policy RCT are either superior or inferior to this policy. (shrink)

Contractarians aim to derive moral principles from the dictates of instrumental rationality alone. But it is well-known that contractarian moral theories struggle to identify normative principles that are both uniquely rational and morally compelling. Michael Moehler's recent book, *Minimal Morality* seeks to avoid these difficulties by developing a novel "two-level" social contract theory, which restricts the scope of contractarian morality to cases of deep and persistent moral disagreement. Yet Moehler remains ambitious, arguing that a restricted version of Kant's categorical imperative (...) is a uniquely rational principle of conflict resolution. We develop a formal model of Moehler's informal game-theoretic argument, which reconstructs a valid argument for Moehler's conclusion. This model, in turn, enables us to expose how a successful argument for Moehler's contractarian principle rests on assumptions that can only be justified by subtle yet significant departures from the standard conception of rationality. We thus extend our understanding of familiar contractarian difficulties by showing how they arise even if we restrict the scope of contractarian morality to a domain where its application seems both promising and necessary. We show that the problem lies not in contractarians' immodest ambitions but in the modest resources rationality can offer to satisfy them. (shrink)

RESUMO O escopo da pesquisa é a análise de 1142b 17-28 da “Ética Nicomaqueia”, trecho em que Aristóteles disserta sobre a correção, tendo em vista que a boa deliberação é uma espécie de correção. A passagem não é clara e sugere que: i) na boa deliberação, a moralidade restringe-se aos fins, cabendo aos meios apenas a característica de serem eficazes na obtenção dos fins; ou que ii) na boa deliberação, a moralidade recai sobre meios e sobre fins pois, com a (...) expressão “usar os meios corretos na obtenção do fim”, Aristóteles estaria incluindo o critério moral dos meios como condição necessária à boa deliberação. Opto por “i)” e defendo que a boa deliberação consiste tão somente em uma habilidade exitosa na obtenção de um fim bom, habilidade que leva em conta o que é melhor, mais fácil, mais eficaz, feita em tempo oportuno. ABSTRACT The scope of research is the analysis of “Nicomachean Ethics”, section 1142b 17-28, a passage in which Aristotle discusses the correction, since good deliberation is a kind of correction. The passage is not clear and suggests that: i) in good deliberation, morality is restricted to the ends, the means having only the characteristic of being effective in attaining the ends; or that ii) in good deliberation, morality pertains to means and ends since, in the expression "to use the right means in obtaining the end", Aristotle seems to include the moral criterion of means as a necessary condition for good deliberation. I opt for “i)” and argue that good deliberation consists only in a successful ability to attain a good end, a skill that takes into account what is better, easier, more effective, done in a timely manner. (shrink)

Social contract theorists often take the ideal contract to be the agreement or bargain individuals would make in some privileged choice situation. Recently, experimental philosophers have explored this kind of decision-making in the lab. One rather robust finding is that the exact circumstances of choice significantly affect the kinds of social arrangements experimental subjects unanimously endorse. Yet prior work has largely ignored the question of which of the many competing descriptions of the original position subjects find most compelling. This paper (...) aims to address this gap, exploring how attractive experimental subjects find various characterizations of these circumstances of choice. We find evidence suggesting that no one choice situation can fulfill the role that social contract theorists have hoped it would play. We also find that, contrary to what some prominent social contract theorists have expected, there is no robust relationship between an individual’s ranking of distributive principles and their ranking of various descriptions of the original position. In conclusion, we discuss the broader implications of these results for political philosophy. (shrink)

Waiting time is widely used in health and social policy to make resource allocation decisions, yet no general account of the moral significance of waiting time exists. We provide such an account. We argue that waiting time is not intrinsically morally significant, and that the first person in a queue for a resource does not ipso facto have a right to receive that resource first. However, waiting time can and sometimes should play a role in justifying allocation decisions. First, there (...) is a duty of fairness prohibiting line-cutting where a sufficiently just queue exists. Second, waiting time has several morally attractive features that can justify its incorporation into allocation schemes. Where candidates are in relevantly similar circumstances, allocating by waiting time is relatively efficient, maximizes distribution equality relative to other Pareto efficient distributions, and treats candidates fairly. The claim that allocation using waiting time is fair is controversial. Some have claimed that formal lotteries are a fairer way to select among equal beneficiaries. We argue that lotteries are no fairer than allocation based on waiting time when it is equiprobable how a prospective queue will be ordered. In practice, lotteries share many of the disadvantages of queues; which is fairer will depend on contingent features of the allocation scenario. The upshot is that first-come, first-served is in fact a just way to allocate resources in many of the cases where it seems pre-theoretically compelling, and waiting time has unique normative properties which frequently justify its incorporation into resource allocation schemes. (shrink)

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most federally funded public benefits programs with few exceptions such as emergency medical assistance and nutrition assistance for women and children. This paper defends the view that a liberal society should provide greater access to undocumented immigrants to public benefits programs and responds to an important economic objection that a state should be able to prioritize the needs of its own members who contribute to these programs. This paper specifically addresses empirical and moral versions of (...) this objection. It also distinguishes between two kinds of public benefits. Certain public benefits, such as social security, may reflect an agreed-upon distribution of public goods, to which people are entitled based on their membership or contribution. Other public benefits, such as nutrition assistance, are set aside primarily to help people based on their need. In the latter case, it is not membership or contribution, but need or which need is greater, that supplies justification for the distribution of these benefits even when resources are limited. (shrink)

I examine the main anticosmopolitan Rawslian argument, the ‘basic structure argument.’ It holds that distributive justice only applies to existing basic structures, there are only state basic structures, so distributive justice only applies among compatriots. Proponents of the argument face three challenges: 1) they must explain what type of basic structure relation makes distributive justice relevant only among compatriots, 2) they must explain why distributive justice (as opposed to allocative or retributive) is the relevant regulative concept for basic structures, and (...) 3) they must put forth a plausible concept of distributive justice. I show that Rawlsians support what I will call the ‘division of labor thesis’ to answer the first two challenges. Briefly, the division of labor thesis holds that distributive justice only becomes relevant where members of a division of labor jointly produce some socioeconomic product. To meet the third challenge, Rawlsians seem to accept what Elizabeth Anderson calls the ‘modern systemic concept of distributive justice’ – the idea that distributive justice organizes entire economic systems with respect to their distributive consequences or the relationships they maintain. I argue that if Rawlsians accept the systemic concept, they should reject the anticosmopolitan basic structure argument. (shrink)

This introduction aims to describe some fundamental problems of intergenerational justice and climate change. It also intends to provide comments on improved versions of some of the best papers presented in the International Meeting “Intergenerational Justice and Climate Change: juridical, moral and political issues” that took place at Cordoba National University (Argentina), in September 2017. In that meeting, the discussion focused on these topics by considering the ideas of the two keynote speakers invited to the event: Lukas H. Meyer and (...) Alessandro Pinzani. I devote the last part of this essay to discuss two pressing issues concerning climate change whose practical solutions challenge our standard understanding of the notion of harm. I discuss, on the one hand, certain issues related with the non-identity problem. On the other hand, I try to identify what kind of obligation do we have when we talk about minimizing the number of people who will suffer harm as a result of the adverse effects of climate change. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: In his A Conceptual Investigation of Justice, Kyle Johannsen suggests a theory of disability that holds that to have a disability just is to be worse off, sometimes referred to as the ‘medical’ or ‘individual’ model of disability. I argue that Johannsen’s understanding of disability might force some of his key claims into an uncomfortable position. In particular, for his theory to avoid the thrust of Elizabeth Anderson’s criticisms of luck egalitarianism, the assumption of the medical model of disability (...) must be dropped, but this comes at the cost of his criticism of John Rawls’ difference principle. -/- RÉSUMÉ : Dans son livre, A Conceptual Investigation of Justice, Kyle Johannsen semble invoquer une théorie du handicap selon laquelle le fait d’avoir un handicap, c’est être pire qu’une autre personne, un modèle parfois appelé le modèle de handicap «médical» ou «individuel». Je soutiens que la compréhension de Johannsen en matière d’invalidité peut mettre sa theorie dans une position difficile. En particulier, pour que sa théorie évite les critiques d’Elizabeth Anderson sur l’égalitarisme de la chance, l’hypothèse du modèle médical du handicap doit être abandonnée. Cependant, cela se fait au détriment de la critique du principe de différence de John Rawls formulée par Johannsen. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Immanuel Kant’s political philosophy has enjoyed renewed attention as an egalitarian alternative to contemporary inequality since it seems to uncompromisingly reassert the primacy of the state over the economy, enabling it to defend the modern welfare state against encroaching neoliberal markets. However, I argue that, when understood as a free-standing approach to politics, Kant’s doctrine of right shares essential features with the prevailing theories that legitimate really existing economic inequality. Like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Kant understands the state’s function (...) as essentially coercive and, in justifying state coercion, he adopts a narrow conception of political freedom that formally preserves the right to choose while denying that the range of choices one actually has can be a matter of justice. As a result, Kant cannot identify various forms of social pressure as potential injustices even as he recognizes their power to create and sustain troubling inequalities. For both Kant and the neoliberals, the result is that economic relations almost never count as unjust forms of coercion, no matter how unequal they are. Views that identify coercion as the trigger for duties of justice are thus particularly ill-suited to orient us to contemporary inequality. (shrink)

Nesta comunicação exploro aquele que deve ser o objecto e o âmbito de uma teoria de justiça. Da resposta a estas duas questões depende a possibilidade de definir princípios de justiça que concebam uma sociedade justa. Assim, tenho em consideração as propostas sobre o objecto e o âmbito da justiça presentes nas teorias de Nozick (libertária), de Rawls (igualitária) e de Walzer (comunitária) e avalio topicamente cada uma das posições. Concluo tentando responder à questão: qual deve ser o objecto e (...) o âmbito de uma teoria de justiça? (shrink)

There is widespread agreement that the most serious and debilitating contemporary social problem in the developed capitalist world is the problem of enforced or involuntary unemployment. The growth in mass unemployment in the 1970s and 80s has produced a renewal of the demand by the labour and trade union movement1 for the implementation of a ‘right to work’; presumably in the belief that the official recognition and legal enforcement of such a right would lead to the increased availability of jobs. (...) This campaigning slogan has sometimes emanated from the most unlikely sources. In his introduction to a published account of the 1971 Upper Clyde Shipbuilders occupation and work-in, entitled The Right to Work , Mr Harold Wilson declared that ‘what the men of the Clyde proclaimed, and what I went to Clydeside to assert, was “the right to work”. And that principle cannot, and must not, be denied.’. (shrink)

W latach 40. XIX wieku Luigi Taparelli i Antonio Rosmini wprowadzili do publicznego obiegu termin „sprawiedliwość społeczna”. Od tamtego czasu znaczenie tego pojęcia znacznie się poszerzyło. Literatura przedmiotu notuje liczne identyfikacje tego konceptu. Niniejszy tekst koncentruje się na wskazaniu kilku jego ujęć. Autor, w siłą rzeczy skrótowo zaprezentowanych analizach, stara się pokazać specyfikę kilku znaczeń nadawanych „sprawiedliwości społecznej”. Sprawiedliwość społeczna będąca przedmiotem analizy w tym artykule utożsamiana jest ze sprawiedliwością ogólną (prawną) i rozdzielczą.

A brief review of Janna Thompson's *Should Current Generations Make Reparation for Slavery?* (2018, Polity Press).

Diese Studie widmet sich der Grundfrage der Politischen Philosophie nach der richtigen Beschaffenheit der grundlegenden gesellschaftlichen und politischen Institutionen, ihre methodische Problemstellung besteht in der Verbindung von philosophischen und ökonomischen Theorieperspektiven. Das Buch vollzieht eine kritische Analyse der wichtigsten klassischen und modernen Ansätze dazu und überführt diese Kritik in einen konstruktiven Entwurf, der wesentlich auf die Theorie der Grundbefähigungen zurückgreift. Dieses auf Amartya Sen und Martha Nussbaum zurückgehende Konzept knüpft die Legitimation eines Staatswesens an die Bedingung, dass es jedem seiner (...) Bürger ein bestimmtes Minimum an realen Lebensmöglichkeiten garantiert oder zumindest um dessen Garantierung bemüht ist. Die Hauptthese des Buches lässt sich so zusammenfassen, dass die Frage »Equality of what?« für den modernen Sozialstaat weder mit dem Konzept eines für alle garantierten Nutzenminimums noch mit dem Konzept eines für alle garantierten Mindesteinkommens beantwortet werden kann, sondern mit dem Konzept eines garantierten Minimums an Grundbefähigungen, d. h. an realen Lebensoptionen, über die ein Individuum verfügen kann. (shrink)

Recent disputes over whether older people should pay more for health insurance, or receive lower priority for transplantable organs, highlight broader disagreements regarding the legality of using age-based criteria in health care. These debates will likely intensify given the changing age structure of the American population and the turmoil surrounding the financing of American health care. This Article provides a comprehensive examination of the legality and normative desirability of age-based criteria. I defend a distributive justice approach to age-based criteria and (...) contrast it with two prevailing theoretical approaches to age-based criteria, nondiscrimination and discretion. I propose a detailed normative framework for the use of age-based criteria in health care, the lifetime justice approach, that considers the future life patients can gain from treatment and the past years of life they already have experienced. -/- This paper is available by open access from the Boston College Law School Digital Commons. (shrink)

Many distributive egalitarians do not endorse strict equality of goods. Rather, they treat an equal division as having a special status such that departures from equality must be justified. They claim, then, that an equal division is “presumptively” just. Though the idea that equality is presumptively just and that departures from it may be just has intuitive appeal, making a case for this idea proves difficult. I argue, first, that extant “presumption arguments” are unsound. Second, I distill two general philosophical (...) morals: luck egalitarians have not adequately defended the presumption of equality and they face serious obstacles in doing so; Rawls has defended it, but only indirectly via the contract apparatus. This approach narrows the presumption’s appeal. Third, I consider and reject two alternative ways of understanding the presumption of equality that might avoid the problems revealed by my examination of extant views. The first appeals to the idea of value pluralism. The second treats the presumption as a view about the burden of proof. I conclude, ultimately, that it is misleading to think of distributive egalitarianism as typically having the form of a presumption argument. (shrink)

Book Reviews Daniel M. Hausman, Economics and Philosophy, FirstView Article.

Recent work by comparative philosophers, global ethicists, and cross-cultural value theorists indicates that, unlike most Western thinkers, those in many other parts of the globe, such as indigenous Africa, East Asia, and Latin America, tend to prize relationality. These relational values include enjoying a sense of togetherness, participating cooperatively, creating something new together, engaging in mutual aid, and being compassionate. Global economic practices and internationally influential theories pertaining to justice, development, and normative economics over the past 50 years have been (...) principally informed by characteristically Western and individualist values such as utility, autonomy, and capability. In this article I consider what economic appropriation, production, distribution, and consumption would look like if they were more influenced by relational values typical of non-Western worldviews, and especially the sub-Saharan ethic of ubuntu. (shrink)

In his Spheres of Justice, Michael Walzer argues that society can be understood as a compound of a number of different segments, where each of them has its own distinct meanings and values of social goods. He calls these segments ‘spheres of distributive justice’, and, as distinct meanings and values point to different procedures of distribution, spheres are separated by criteria and arrangements which are considered appropriate for distribution of certain goods. We should seek to ensure that inequalities in one (...) sphere do not spread into other spheres. Different goods should be distributed for different reasons and according to different procedures, and that is the consequence of cultural relativism and pluralism. Walzer also states that distribution can be just or unjust and that is relative to the social meanings of the goods. Thus, we can define injustice as applying the distributive principle from one sphere of social life to another – such a definition follows from the idea of spheres of distributive justice. -/- In Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer claims that states possess rights more or less as individuals do; therefore, it is possible to imagine a society among states more or less like the society of individuals. This relies on what is called a ‘domestic analogy’. The primary form of the theory of aggression, which rests upon a domestic analogy, is called the ‘legalist paradigm’ by Walzer, and it can be summed up in a number of statements where it is claimed, among other things, that aggression justifies the war of law enforcement against the aggressor state, which can be punished once it has been militarily repulsed. According to Walzer, the implication of the paradigm is clear: if states are members of international society and thus the subjects of rights, they must also be the objects of punishment. -/- In this paper, however, I will try to show that if we accept Walzer’s idea of spheres of distributive justice, maybe we should not accept domestic analogy at the same time. Namely, if the aggressor state is the object of punishment justified by legalist paradigm, then is it the case that distribution of punishment, which is a “negative” distributable good, is an example of applying a distributive principle from one sphere of justice (interpersonal relations) to another (international relations)? If that is the case, then the punishment of the aggressor state is unjust, according to definition of injustice which follows from Spheres of Justice. As the punishment is justified by legalist paradigm, which is, on the other hand, based on domestic analogy, I conclude that a domestic analogy is not compatible with Walzer's idea of spheres of distributive justice in social life. (shrink)

This chapter discusses some problems raised about sufficientarianism and offers some responses to them.

Liam Shields systematically clarifies and defends the political philosophy of Sufficientarianism, which insists that securing enough of some things, such as food, healthcare and education, is a crucial demand of justice. By engaging in practical debates about critical issues such as child-rearing and global justice, the author sheds light on the potential implications of suffientarianism on the social policies that affect our daily lives.

If there is a duty of justice to contribute to society, which asks individuals to produce a specific amount of goods and services that can be redistributed, we need a decision-procedure to know whe...

Principles of distributive justice bind macro-level institutional agents, like the state. But what does justice require in non-ideal circumstances, where institutional agents are unjust or do not e...