QUESTION: - How should resources be distributed in a just society?

Use theories of
justice we have studied to give your conclusion, giving your reasons.

Distribution of resources in a just society otherwise referred to as ‘distributive justice’ is

described as “the ways that the benefits and burdens of our lives are shared between members
of the society”1. Resources are limited in the societies we live in, and as such the question as
to how the wealth and benefits of our society ought to be shared among members of the
society often arises.

Numerous scholars have attempted to give a definitive answer to this question using theories
of justice with varying degrees of success. The theories promulgated by such scholars include
Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, Libertarianism and Communitarianism. Advocates of each of
these respective four theories agree that public assets must be distributed in a reasonable
manner to ensure everyone receives “a fair share”, however these theorists don’t seem to
agree as to what constitutes “a fair share” and what methods one must employ to achieve a
“fair” distribution of resources. This essay will intricately examine all four theories to answer
the question: “how resources should be distributed in a just society?”

Utilitarian Theory

Utilitarianism is the approach to morality that regards pleasure or the satisfaction of desire as
the exclusive element in human good. Its premise is the proposition that the fundamental
objective of justice is that happiness should be maximized. Thus the leading utilitarian
Jeremy Bentham devised a ‘felicific calculus’ by which we might test the “happiness factor”
of any action.2 Applying utilitarian principles to the just distribution of resources, one can
infer that utilitarianism seeks that the distribution of resources should maximize the happiness
of a society. Such a distribution must make happy the greater number of people and dissatisfy
the least number of people in the society. 3 This is so because a commodity or resource is of
less value to someone who already has a lot of it, than to someone who possesses a very short
supply of the item (e.g. one extra Dalasi means much less to a millionaire than to a beggar).

It follows that the loss of happiness of the rich is much lesser than the gain of happiness of
the poor, when some reasonable amount is taken from the rich and given to the poor.
However there are several problems one might encounter if strictly applying utilitarian
theories in the just distribution of resources. Firstly, it must be stated that the pleasure of an
individual cannot be replaced by the greater pleasure of others. The “unhappy few” who have
been dissatisfied in favour of the “numerous happy” in society, may feel that they haven’t
received their “fair share” of the total resources and as a result may lose the motivation to
contribute to the society, adversely affecting the overall wealth of that society.4

Another problem associated with the application of this theory is the argument that it cannot
be calculated as a fact that the distribution of resources in a utilitarian manner would

1
Armstrong, Global Distributive Justice, (2012) Cambridge University Press, pp. 18
2
Political Science Quarterly, Bentham’s Felicific Calculus, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1918), pp. 161-183 (23 pages)
3
Ibid
4
R Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory, (2017), pp 310
definitively maximize happiness. For example, if John promises to deliver ten thousand
Dalasi to Sarah, but then finds out that Sarah is married to a millionaire and lives in a
mansion. John cannot come to the opinionated conclusion that donating the ten thousand
Dalasi to a charity instead would maximize happiness. What if the charity already receives
millions in donations monthly, and ten thousand Dalasi would only be regarded as a drop in
the bucket? What if Sarah desperately wanted to start a business of her own in order to be
financially independent of her husband? As such, one cannot say for certain whether or not a
certain decision would maximize happiness. Therefore it can be stated that utilitarianism fails
to provide a just and fair way through which resources can be distributed in a society.

Egalitarian Theory

Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favours equality of

some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals in some
respect.5 It is famously advocated for by John Rawls who rejected Utilitarianism in its
entirety and advocated for a society of ‘equal individuals’.

Applying egalitarian principles to the just distribution of resources, one can infer that
egalitarianism seeks a position that favours a greater degree of equality of income and wealth
across individuals of a society. Resource egalitarianism aims to secure for everyone an equal
set of resources and an equal opportunity to convert those resources into welfare. For
example, If Peter and Paul have the same bundle of resources, but Peter needs a wheelchair to
be mobile and Paul does not, then Peter is disadvantaged. Their positions are not equal. This
disadvantage can however be remedied by providing extra resources for Peter to get a
wheelchair. Now the two bundles are comparable because Paul has a mobile body while peter
has a non-mobile body plus a wheelchair. Thus the goal of distribution in an egalitarian
society is to bring all individuals to an initial position of equality.

I agree that certain aspects of this theory could be applied in the just distribution of resources,
however, there are several problems with it. Firstly the idea of the initial position of equality
has been criticised as artificial by many critics, who suggest that many people in society
prefer a more competitive system. The competition for resources would be stifled by
unevenly and unfairly channelling more resources towards the disadvantaged to the detriment
of the advantaged in order to achieve John Rawls idea of an initial position of equality. 6 For
example it would require more resources to get Peter a wheelchair, as opposed to Paul who
doesn’t need one. Thus, resources have to be distributed unevenly in favour of the
disadvantaged, and this in itself violates the principle of equality and equal opportunities.

Secondly, Rawls belief that ‘hard work only need be rewarded in order to secure that the
disadvantaged do as well as possible’ has also been criticised. Justice and the just distribution
of resources are about deserts: getting what one deserves. If an individual works hard to
acquire resources, those resources must be deservedly allocated to that person. Any
individual would justifiably feel a great sense of injustice if they are not adequately rewarded
5
S Scheffler, What is Egalitarianism, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 5-39
6
M Maiese, Distributive Justice: The Notion of Fair Distribution, (2013), available online at
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_justice
for their hard work, and allocated the resources which they deserve. As such, it can be stated
that egalitarianism fails to provide a just and fair way through which resources can be
distributed in a society.

Libertarian Theory

Libertarianism is a laissez-faire political philosophy advocating minimal state intervention in

the lives of citizens, and seeks to uphold liberty as a core principle. Robert Nozick is famous
for advocating for this social theory and he states that Government interference in the
distribution of resources is only justified if it protects citizens’ liberties and property rights. 7
Libertarians maintain that resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers
them, mixes his labour with them, or merely claims them without the consent of others, and
with little or no payment to them. They believe resources are originally un-owned, and
therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to
others.

Applying Libertarian principles to the distribution of resources in a just society, one can infer
that Libertarianism seeks that goods be distributed according to an individual’s effort and
ability to acquire these resources for himself with little regard for the effects of his
acquisition on the rest of the society. In this theory, everyone is given an equal opportunity to
compete, and individuals are rewarded based on their input in society. Thus, those who make
a greater productive contribution to their group deserve more benefits. For example, a banker
who works for Barclays Bank and generates millions in turnover profits every year for the
bank would earn much higher wages and benefits than that of a janitor who works for the
same bank.

Although this theory has been applied to a degree of success in many societies today, there
are many problems associated with it. Firstly the theory omits the right to welfare in favour
for property rights and liberty. This is a negative thing because in every society, there exists
the less privileged and disadvantaged who may not be allowed by certain factors beyond their
control to be as competitive as they should be. Resources must be allocated by a supreme
authority to cater for the needs of such people to prevent them from being marginalised
members of the society. For example, some states pay unemployment bonuses to the
unemployed until they can obtain a job, whilst other states make welfare payments to the
poor in order to take care of themselves and their families. By doing so these States have, to
some extent, bridged the inequality gap between the two sets of members in the society.
Thus, by advocating against the use of resources by a supreme authority to provide social
welfare benefits for the disadvantaged, the Libertarian theory fails to provide a means of just
distribution of resources in any given society.

Communitarian Theory
7
Nozick, R. Socratic Puzzles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, (1997)
Communitarianism is strongly linked to Karl Marx and communism and is strongly opposed
to Libertarianism and capitalism. Communitarianism is the belief that all goods and resources
must be distributed in the interest of the society as opposed to individual rights and interest.
This theory prioritises and promotes general welfare and common purpose among members
of the society.8

Applying communitarian theory to the distribution of resources in a just society, one can infer
that communitarianism seeks to distribute resources in order to cater for, and only for, the
society as a whole. Individual needs and wants are discarded in favour of achieving a
collective goal. There exists no competition in the acquisition of resources, and individuals
hold resources as part of a group. This theory is however one of the least desired theories in
application in the world today due to the numerous problems it raises.

Firstly individual needs and interest may starkly defer from that of the society’s, hereby
causing a conflict of interest between individual and community rights with regards to
resource allocation. For example, an individual’s right and desire to acquire land in order to
build a house for himself, would be trumped by the society’s need to use said land to build a
vegetable market for the community. This conflict can be troublesome and may affect the
general productivity of the society.

In addition, communitarianism doesn’t allow for the competition of resources, meaning those
who produce a greater output would not be rewarded for their efforts and would be treated
equally to other members of the same community who may not have put in a similar effort.
Thus, such a system cannot be considered just, and must not be applied in the just distribution
of resources.

Conclusion/Opinion

My opinion with regards the question “how resources should be distributed in a just society?”
leans towards the Libertarian theory of just distribution. However, the application of the
Libertarian theory on its own will fail to provide a just way in which resources are to be
distributed, but when applied together with social welfare rights, it becomes the ideal theory
to use in the distribution of resources. I believe in a system of competition for resources that
is complemented with safety nets for those who cannot compete. This sort of system attempts
to reward people for their productivity and at the same time ensure that all their basic needs
are met.

Such a system promotes productivity and the invention of ideas and products aimed at
acquiring more of the resources available. It also ensures that everyone’s basic and essential
needs are met which is not only good for the individual, but makes criminal activities less
desirable to such an individual. I am also of the opinion that the Utilitarian, Egalitarian and
Communitarian theories do not adequately provide answers to the above question of ‘just
distribution’ and should therefore not be used in the just distribution of resources in any given
society.
8
Sayers S. Individual and Society in Marx and Hegel: Beyond the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism,
Science & Society, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 84-102