he term distributive justice refers to fairness in the way things are distributed,

caring more about how it is decided who gets what, rather than what is
distributed. In modern society, this is an important principle, as it is generally
expected that all goods will be distributed throughout society in some manner. In
a society with a limited amount of resources and wealth, the question of fair
allocation is often a source of debate and contention. This is called distributive
justice. To explore this concept, consider the following distributive justice
definition.

Definition of Distributive Justice

Noun
1. Justice that is concerned with the distribution or allotment of goods, duties,
and privileges in concert with the merits of individuals, and the best interests
of society.
Origin
12th century Middle English

History of Distributive Justice

Some modern philosophers express the opinion that the notion of distributive
justice is not very old, probably originating in the 18th century, based on the idea
that society did not have a structure sophisticated enough to address allocation
of resources with the intent of meeting everyone’s needs. Additionally, in empires
and kingdoms of old, the monarch owned everything, permitting his subjects to
use goods, land, and other items in his name.

Distributive Justice and the Right of Necessity

Sometime in the 12th century, the question of whether someone who had great
need would be justified in taking something that belonged to someone else
without consent, if it was needed to save his life, was addressed by certain
philosophers. Religious scholars, at first, seemed inclined to say no, arguing that
doing something that is evil, or otherwise inherently wrong, could not be justified
by need. Believers in the philosophy of right of necessity brought about questions
of the justification of property rights.
The idea of private property, or property being owned by a single person or entity
other than the crown, gained both popularity and legitimacy over time. The
writings of church fathers, church councils, and popes, however, were interpreted
as meaning that the concept of private ownership of property was a matter of
human law, not divine or natural law. Both natural and religious laws held that the
earth had been given by God for the benefit of all, meaning that all things must
be shared with those who need them.
As an example of distributive justice, and the right of necessity, sixteenth century
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested that each individual person has
a right to whatever is needed for self-preservation, including such things as food,
water, fire, clothing, and a place to live.

Equality of Resources
There is a philosophy in distributive justice, in which treats each person’s abilities
and external resources as random chance. In this theory, inequalities between
people’s social situations are acceptable, if they are a result of the individuals’
personal choices, but are not acceptable if they result from disadvantages thrust
upon them. Under this theory, an individual who begins with equal resources may
still end up in a better state than others, simply by virtue of having fewer
handicaps, or greater talents.

Distributive Justice Example

Suppose 30 people survive a plane crash, and make their way onto a small,
deserted island. The group places a priority on determining what resources are
available to them, including natural resources of the island and the sea, and
resources that may have washed ashore from the wreck. What would be the best
way to ensure those resources are shared among the survivors in a fair and
equitable fashion?
Jewish-American philosopher Thomas Dworkin suggests that, in order for a
division of resources to be fair and impartial, one must apply what he calls “the
envy test.” In this evaluation of distribution, none of the survivors would prefer, or
envy, someone else’s resources. If this system of distributive justice is used,
however, the final allocations may meet the test, but still appear biased or unfair.
Dworkin recommends a different manner of distribution of resources that places
each individual in the same starting position, and allows them to choose which
resources they would prefer to have. Should all of the resources be pooled, then
each survivor be given an equal number of tokens. An auctioneer, appointed to
divide the resources into lots, on which survivors may bid, using their tokens.
This allows each person to make a choice as to his priority in resources, and on
which items he will bid.
Welfare-Based Principles of Distributive
Justice
Distributive justice takes into account the equitable distribution of many aspects
of social life, above and beyond “goods.” Other benefits and burdens that are
considered include potential income and economic wealth, taxation, work
obligations, political power, education, housing, healthcare, military service, and
community involvement.
Equality issues then are commonly seen in affirmative action policies, minimum
wage laws, and public education opportunities and quality. Some of the more
highly contended issues of distributive justice are those of public welfare,
including Medicaid and food stamps, as well as providing aid to developing
nations, and issues of progressive or tiered income taxes.

The Importance of Distributive Justice

In some fashion, every person’s claim to resources is, or has been, affected by
someone who came before. The issue of what someone owns, or what he is
entitled to, may be divided into two camps: (1) the belief that everyone begins life
at a null point when they are born, after which they must earn their way through
life, acquiring resources through the use of their talents and effort; and (2) the
belief that each person, from birth, is entitled to what his parents possess,
regardless of their own efforts in life. The second camp may be expanded to
include people who believe they are entitled to what others have, regardless of
family relation.
It has been noted that people begin to feel a sense of injustice when they believe
that their condition or outcome is not in balance with the conditions of other
people in similar situations. The perception of being at some kind of unfair
disadvantage, or of not receiving a “fair share” of resources, often leads to
feelings of despair. This is especially true when a person feels his fundamental
needs are not met. A gulf between the “haves” and “have nots” of society
sometimes drives people to challenge the system, pushing for change.
The issue of perceived imbalance in distribution has become apparent in certain
regions of the world, including the Middle East, Europe, and other regions, as
more and more people take a stand, often violently. Even in the United States, as
the gulf between classes increases, civil and political unrest escalate. Another
important issue in distributive justice is society’s belief that such things as race,
color, gender, and religion should have nothing to do with distribution. Many
people’s actual life experiences lead them to feel at an unfair disadvantage, and
left out of what should be fair distribution.
Example of Distributive Justice in
Education
If equality in distribution of resources was the only true measurement of who
should get what, goods or other resources would be divided equally among all
people. Another, equally important, consideration is need. To illustrate how a
simple, equal division of resources is likely to result in an unequal outcome,
consider the needs of students entering college each year.
Fairplay Community College has decided to offer a $500 scholarship to every
freshman coming in with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. On the surface, giving every
student in the group the same size scholarship seems to be a fair way to
distribute the monies. On the other hand, while a $500 scholarship will certainly
help pay the expenses of students whose family can afford the rest of their tuition
and other expenses, it has no value at all to the students whose families cannot
afford the additional $3,000 to $4,000 per semester tuition. In this example of
distributive justice, the school is likely to save quite a bit of money, as a large
number of freshman students in the 3.0 GPA group will simply not be able to
avail themselves of the scholarship.
The GPA approach certainly appears to reward students according to their efforts
and abilities, though a more just method of distribution may take into account the
students’ individual financial needs. In fact, many colleges in the U.S. do offer
needs-based scholarships, in which students with a greater need receive a larger
scholarship. In educational opportunities, as well as social programs, this type of
approach helps ensure everyone’s needs are met.

Distributive Justice and the Environment

As it relates to the environment, distributive justice refers to the evenhanded
sharing of society’s environmental risks, benefits, and impacts. These issues
include air and water pollution, overburdened landfills, industrial waste, and other
environmental burdens. Distributive justice in the environment is the vital
principle of sharing the burdens and responsibilities for the earth’s health, as
pollution, global warming, and other environmental consequences have a
negative effect on people’s heath, decrease quality of life, and reduce property
values.

Distributive justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Jump to navigationJump to search

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it
has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article
by introducing more precise citations. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of goods. Often contrasted with just
process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on
outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences.
Distributive justice is fundamental to the Catholic Church's social teaching, inspiring such figures
as Dorothy Day[1] and Pope John Paul II.[2]
In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs
are shared by (distributed across) group members.[3] For example, when some workers work more
hours but receive the same pay, group members may feel that distributive justice has not occurred.
To determine whether distributive justice has taken place, individuals often turn to the behavioral
expectations of their group.[3] If rewards and costs are allocated according to the designated
distributive norms of the group, distributive justice has occurred.[4]

Contents

 1Types of distributive norms

 2Outcomes
 3Wealth
 4Environmental justice
 5In policy positions
 6See also
 7Notes
 8References
 9Further reading
 10External links

Types of distributive norms[edit]

Five types of distributive norm are defined by Donelson R. Forsyth:[3]

1. Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of
the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group's
resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%. .[citation needed]
2. Equity: Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who
has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from
the group than someone who has contributed very little. Members of large groups prefer to
base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.
3. Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more
than those in lower level positions.
 4. Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those
needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess
them, regardless of their input.
5. Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those
who have less.

Outcomes[edit]
Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved.[5] Improving
perceptions of justice increases performance.[6] Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are
employee actions in support of the organization that are outside the scope of their job description.
Such behaviors depend on the degree to which an organization is perceived to be distributively
just.[5][6] As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more
likely to engage in OCBs. Perceptions of distributive justice are also strongly related also to the
withdrawal of employees from the organization.[5]

Wealth[edit]
See also: Redistribution (economics)

Distributive justice considers whether the distribution of goods among the members of society at a
given time is subjectively acceptable.
Not all advocates of consequentialist theories are concerned with an equitable society. What unites
them is the mutual interest in achieving the best possible results or, in terms of the example above,
the best possible distribution of wealth.

Environmental justice[edit]
Distributive justice in an environmental context is the equitable distribution of a society's
technological and environmental risks, impacts, and benefits. These burdens include air pollution,
landfills, industrial factories, and other environmental burdens. Distributive justice is an essential
principle of environmental justice because there is evidence that shows that these burdens cause
health problems, negatively affect quality of life, and drive down property value.
The potential negative social impacts of environmental degradation and regulatory policies have
been at the center environmental discussions since the rise of environmental justice.[7] Historically,
environmental burdens fall on poor communities that are predominantly African-American, Native-
American, Latino, and Appalachian.[8]

In policy positions[edit]
Distributive justice theory argues that societies have a duty to individuals in need and that all
individuals have a duty to help others in need. Proponents of distributive justice link it to human
rights.
Many governments are known for dealing with issues of distributive justice, especially countries with
ethnic tensions and geographically distinctive minorities. Post-apartheid South Africa is an example
of a country that deals with issues of re-allocating resources with respect to the distributive justice
framework