7 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

AND BIOETHICS
7.1 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
OBJECTIVE
• At the end of the discussion, learners are expected to:
• Analyze the different philosophical perspectives on
distributive justice
• It is an integral part of any human
organization (family, company,
society, etc.)

• Depending on the nature of the

organization, certain things
(resources, economic goods,
workload, rights, duties, sacrifices,
etc.) need to be distributed for the
organization to function well.
• The morality of distributions is
evaluated in terms of their
fairness.
• “A distribution that is morally
good, in this light, is one that
is fair; and a distribution that is
morally bad is one that is
unfair.”
• Distributive Justice is the critical
examination of claims and
arguments, as well as practical
applications of fair distribution.

• It aims to cultivate the virtue of

justice among human individuals
and social institutions acting as
agents of distributive acts.
Relation of Justice and Morality

Claims and Arguments of the Various

Theories of Distributive Justice
 1. In what way is justice an ethical
Accounts of Plato and Aristotle of the
concept? Why should we be just in our
Virtue of Justice
actions or dealings with other people?

2. In what way is distributive justice a

fundamental kind of justice? What is How Distributive Justice differs from
special about the distributive kind of and relates to the other kinds of justice
justice?
 John Rawls (A Theory of
Justice) remarks that:

“Justice is the first virtue of

social institutions, as truth is of
systems of thought.”
• Plato and Aristotle built their
theories of justice on this
conception.
 Plato’s Concept of the Soul
In the Republic, Plato describes the soul as having three parts.

REASON (awareness of a
goal or a value)
SPIRIT (drive toward
action)
APPETITE (desire for the
things of the body)
 Virtue as Fulfillment
REASON (WISDOM)
of Function
SPIRIT (COURAGE) JUSTICE
• The GOOD LIFE is the life of APPETITE (TEMPERANCE)
inner harmony , of well-being,
of happiness.

• Each part of the soul has a REASON SPIRIT

special FUNCTION. If one will
use reason to control the spirit
and appetite, one can cultivate
the virtues of wisdom (reason),
spirit (courage), and appetite
(temperance)
APPETITE
The cause of evil is discovered in the very nature of the soul
and in the relation of the soul to the body.
SOUL (rational) is enclosed in the body (irrational).

The body disturbs the harmony of the soul, for the body
exposes the soul to stimuli that deflect reason for the reason
from true knowledge.
• For Plato, morality consists in the recovery of one’s lost
inner harmony.

• Before one can go from false to true knowledge, one must

somehow become aware that one is in a state of
ignorance.

• Recollection of TRUE KNOWLEDGE

• Throughout Plato’s discussion of morality, Plato viewed the
good life of inner harmony, of well-being, of happiness.

• Each part of the soul has a special function.

• Plato frequently compared the good life to the efficient

functioning of things. “A knife is good when it cuts
efficiently, that is, when it fulfills its function. We say
that physicians that they are good physicians when they
fulfill the function of doctoring.”
 Virtue as Fulfillment of Function
• The GOOD LIFE is the life of inner harmony , of well-being,
of happiness.
• Each part of the soul has a special FUNCTION.

REASON (WISDOM)
SPIRIT (COURAGE)
APPETITE (TEMPERANCE)
 THREE FACULTIES OF MAN
FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS VIRTUE
1. Reason Drive to reach genuine wisdom Wisdom
2. Spirit Impulse towards, beauty and Courage
goodness
3. Appetite Drives for the pleasure of the body Temperance

1. Reason must be superior in order to free the soul from its body. Thus, in every faculty,
in order to attain liberation, one must have wisdom as the superior to control reason.
2. Courage is to direct once spirit and
3. Temperance is to control the pleasure of seeking drive of the body embedded on his
appetites
REASON (WISDOM) PHILOSOPHER-KING
SPIRIT (COURAGE) SOLDIERS
APPETITE (TEMPERANCE) MERCHANTS

Every positions must work together in fulfilling their

special function to make a good and harmonious society.
1. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
2. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
3. COMPENSATORY JUSTICE
4. PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
 1. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
• Distributive Justice refers to the fair
distribution or allocation of certain
things, which are generally classified
as burdens, when they are regarded
as undesirable, or as benefits, when
they are regarded as desirable.
• A fair distribution refers to a
distribution in which the persons
involved get what they deserve to
receive.
 1. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
• Distributive Justice can be an
issue when parents are assigning
household chores to their
children or determining their
school allowances.
• Distributive Justice can be
employers are determining the
salaries and benefits their
employees ought to receive for
their kind of work.
 2. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
• Retributive Justice (Retaliatory Justice)
refers to the fair imposition of punishments
and penalties on those guilty of performing
wrongful acts to the other persons.

• It takes into account the degree of

accountability in that a fair imposition of
punishment is one in which the degree of
punishment given to the deserving person
should be commensurate to the person’s
degree of accountability.
 2. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
The imposition of punishment is
fairly imposed on a person if:
1. This is person deserves to be
punished
2. He / She deserves the degree of
punishment being given to him/her
given his/her degree of
accountability.
 3. COMPENSATORY JUSTICE

Compensatory Justice refers to

the fair way of compensating
people, usually by providing them
certain goods, for what they lost
as a result of wrongful actions
done to them.
 4. PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
Procedural Justice refers to
the fairness in the process by
which a decision is made,
especially in resolving
disputes and allocating
resources. It is usually
associated with the legal
concept of due process.
1. EGALITARIAN JUSTICE
2. CAPITALIST JUSTICE
3. SOCIALIST JUSTICE
4. JUSTICE AS FAIR OPPORTUNITY
5.UTILITARIAN JUSTICE
6. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
7. LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE
 1. EGALITARIAN JUSTICE
• This theory claims that a certain distribution is fair if every
member of a group receives an equal share of the
distribution.

A. POLITICAL EGALITARIANISM

B. ECONOMIC EGALITARIANISM
 1. EGALITARIAN JUSTICE
A. POLITICAL EGALITARIANISM
• All citizens should enjoy the same
basic legal rights, guaranteed by
the state.

• For instance, every citizen,

regardless of skin color or ethnicity,
should be able to avail the rights to
suffrage, education, and due
process.
 1. EGALITARIAN JUSTICE
B. ECONOMIC EGALITARIANISM
• All citizens should enjoy the same
basic socioeconomic goods or
resources (those necessary to live a
decent life) guaranteed by the state.

• For instance, every citizen, regardless of skin

color or ethnicity, should be able to avail of the
various forms of economic assistance (shelter,
health, income) provided for by the state to
those who need them.
 1. EGALITARIAN JUSTICE
• One fundamental question about egalitarian
justice is whether all instances of inequality,
which put some people in a
disadvantageous position, are unfair.

• Luck egalitarianism refers to the only

inequalities brought about by bad luck are
unfair. Only those cases where the
disadvantaged position of some people is
brought about by unfavorable circumstances
that they have no control over, or they are not
responsible for, are unfair.
 2. CAPITALIST JUSTICE
• Capitalist Justice claims that a certain
distribution is fair if every member of a
group receives his/her share in the
distribution in proportion to his/her
contribution to the success of the goals
of the group.

• The greater one’s contribution, the greater

should be his/her share in distribution.
The lesser one’s contribution, the lesser
should be his/her share in distribution.
 3. SOCIALIST JUSTICE
• Socialist Justice claims that a certain
distribution is fair if every member of a
group receives his/her share in the
distribution according to or in
proportion to his/her needs.

• The greater one’s needs, the greater

should be his/her share in the
distribution. The lesser one’s needs,
the lesser should be his/her share in
the distribution.
 4. JUSTICE AS FAIR OPPORTUNITY
• It is a theory that claims that certain
distribution is fair if every member of a
group receives his/her share in the
distribution according to or in proportion
to the effort he/she has exerted in
achieving the goals of the group.

• The greater one’s effort, the greater

should be his/her share in the distribution.
The lesser one’s effort, the lesser should
be his/her share in the distribution.
 5.UTILITARIAN JUSTICE
• Utilitarian Justice basically
contends that any distribution is fair
so long as it results in the
maximization of the aggregate
good or welfare of all persons
involved in the distribution.

• Good or welfare may be in the

form of happiness, desire
satisfaction, or improvement in the
quality of life.
 6. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
• Justice as Fairness is a theory that claims that
a certain distribution among the members in a
group is fair if the principles that govern such
distribution were chosen by the members in
a fair manner.

• John Rawls proposed this theory in

consideration of the fact that people are
naturally inclined to promote their self-interests,
in that one would naturally go for a criterion of
justice that would benefit him/her in the end.
 6. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
• John Rawls came up with a
procedure that would ensure the
fairness and impartiality of the choice
of the principles of distribution.
• He called this procedure the original
position, where people are to
imagine that they are under the veil
of ignorance– a condition where
people are supposed to forget the
particular characteristics of their lives
such as their social status, gender,
religious belief, etc.
 6. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
When distributive principles are chosen
in a fair manner, the initially disadvantaged
members of society, in virtue of bad luck or
poor initial endowments in life, are ensured
to enjoy the same basic rights and liberties
enjoyed by everyone else, and are assured
that they will also benefit from the
inequalities that they will find themselves
in.
 7. LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE
• Libertarian Justice is called the
Entitlement Theory.
• It claims that distributions are fair
when no moral rights are violated
in acquiring and transferring
ownership of the goods to be
distributed.
1. This module looked into the ethics of distributive justice,
referring to the philosophical theme whose central focus is the
critical examination of the different perspectives on what counts
as a fair distribution.

2. Despite the competing issues on the different theories of

justice, there are ways in which these theories can be made to
complement or supplement one another.
• Evangelista, Francis Julius N., et Mabaquaio, Napoleon M. 2020.
Ethics: Theories and Applications. Mandaluyong: Anvil
Publishing Inc.

• Mahaguay, Jerwin. 2011. Philosophy of Man: Learn the Basics:

Tarlac: HistGoPhil Publication.

• Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. 1994. The History of Philosophy. United

States of America: McGraw Hill, Inc.
7.2 BIOETHICS
 BIOETHICS

OBJECTIVES
• At the end of the discussion, learners are expected to:
• 1. Understand the arguments of the three philosophical approaches
to life
• 2. Reflect on the beginning of life in three different perspectives
• 3. Discuss some issues on bioethics
THE BEGINNING OF
HUMAN LIFE
1. Does the beginning of life also entail the beginning of
being a man?

2. Can we say that there is a human being at the

process of fertilization?

3. When does the essence of being a man come?

 CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

RATIONALIST APPROACH

EXISTENTIALIST PERSPECTIVE
 CHRISTIAN
PERSPECTIVE
What is the observable or tangible proof that there is a soul?

Where does the soul come from? Technology can now do human cloning.
Does the clone possess a soul?

When the victim of rape conceived after the incident, can we say to the victim
that she should love and take care her child because God gave the child
soul?

Do the souls of those who are mentally and physically challenged also
experience difficulties?
THE RATIONALIST
APPROACH
How can one be sure that animals have no reason?

Are those mentally challenged be called human?

Can an old man whose reason is already fading also be

slowly losing his humanity?
THE EXISTENTIALIST
APPROACH
• Existentialism holds that existence precedes essence.
• To be human means to exist or to be born and to create one’s
humanity.
• Everyone starts from the scratch.
• Man is responsible for shaping his life.
• He can either choose to live a dignified life or a life of animal-
like existence.
 “Existence precedes essence.”
-Sartre
“Man is challenged to create his meaning with the
choice he is going to make.”
 EXISTENTIALISM

THEISTIC ATHEISTIC
– Christian existentialists are headed by
Zoren Kierkegard.
– This group acknowledges the existence
of God and God’s role in human affairs.
– They believe that freedom to create
oneself is still possible even in the
presence of God who knows
everything.
– They believe that man is thrown into the
world with nothing to hope for and trust
except of himself.
– This group denies the existence of God
and only acknowledges human will in all
the aspects of human development.
 ow about the babies and those who are mentally
challenged who cannot decide for themselves, can we
say that they are still human?

If you lived your life to the fullest and achieved your

dreams, what is the indication that you already
achieved your humanity?
BIOETHICS
• It is a study of ethical
issues arising from
healthcare, biological
science, and medical
sciences.
A classic bioethical decision
• One heart available → who should get it?
40-year-old school 70-year-old woman
17-year old girl
principal
A classic bioethical decision
• One heart available → who should get it?
40-year-old school 70-year-old woman
17-year old girl
principal
• ABORTION
• EUTHANASIA
• HUMAN CLONING
• DONATING AND SELLING ONE’S ORGAN
• PLASTIC SURGERY
1. ABORTION
2. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
3. CLONING
 1. ABORTION
• It is defined as the termination of
pregnancy.

• The key moral problem is: under what

conditions, if any, is abortion (or
deliberate termination of pregnancy)
morally justifiable?

1. Conservative View
2. Moderate View
3. Liberal View
 1. ABORTION
1.Conservative View
• Personhood begins in
conception– at the moment when
spermatozoon fertilizes an ovum to
form the zygote.

a. The zygote is alive and human being

from the time it is conceived.
b. The development of the unborn from
conception is one, unbroken,
continuous process.
c. The unborn is unique.
 1. ABORTION
2. Liberal Point of View
The liberal view claims that personhood begins at birth
and, thus the fetus does not have any moral status at
all.

Mary Anne Warren argues that a fetus is not a person

because it lacks the five essential characteristics of
persons:
a. Consciousness (which includes the capacity to feel
pain)
b. Reasoning
c. Self-motivated activity
d. The capacity to communicate
e. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness
 1. ABORTION
3. Moderate View
• It claims that personhood is attained at some point in the fetal
development, not as early as conception, but not as late as
birth.
 2. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
• To respond to the desire of the childless
couples to have a child without the need to
adopt, technologies for assisted
reproduction (AR) have been developed.

• These are techniques for creating a baby

other than sexual intercourse between
man and a woman. Some involve only a
couple (usually married), whereas others
may involve singles or unmarried couples
and utilize bodily products or services of
third parties.
 2. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
1. Artificial Insemination with Husband’s sperm
(AIH)
This technique is used to treat a form of male infertility
in which the man cannot produce sufficient amount of
sperm in one ejaculation to fertilize his partner’s egg.

2. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

“In vitro” is Latin for “under glass,” so children born
through this procedure are often referred to as “test
tube babies.” Others call this AR Technology as
“external fertilization” since fertilization occurs outside
the woman’s body.
 2. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
3. The other AR Technology is
surrogacy, which is related to IVF. It
involves one woman gestating a baby
to raised by another. Initially, women
who acted as surrogates used their
own eggs, but it is increasingly
common for them to use client or
donor eggs.”
 2. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
Ethical Issues on Assisted Reproduction
1. These reproductive technologies are unnatural.
2. Artificial Reproduction technologies threaten the institution of
family.
3. It perpetuates negative social attitudes towards infertile
women.
4. Reproductive Technology does not only promote the idea that
childlessness is negative, it also promotes the view that
childlessness is an illness that requires a cure from medicine.
 3. CLONING
• It refers to reproduction of the
genetic material of an
ancestor-organism without
sex.

a. Reproductive Cloning
b. Therapeutic Cloning
 3. CLONING
a. Reproductive Cloning (Somatic
Cell Nuclear Transfer or SCNT) is
the process in which the researchers
remove a mature somatic cell, such
as a skin cell, from an organism that
they wish to copy. Then they transfer
the DNA of the donor’s somatic cell
into an egg cell, or oocyte, that has
had its own DNA-containing nucleus
removed.
 3. CLONING
b. Therapeutic Cloning (Cloning for
Biomedical Research) involves
creating a cloned embryo for the sole
purpose of producing embryonic stem
cells with the same DNA as the donor
cell. These stem cells can be used in
experiments aimed at understanding
disease and developing new treatments
for disease.
 3. CLONING
Ethical Issues on Cloning
Given the still debatable issue regarding
the moral status of the embryo, some
ethicists consider therapeutic cloning as
morally permissible, but not reproductive
cloning. This is because the former
merely produces batches of small-celled
embryos the size of the tip of a fine-point
pen aimed mainly for biomedical
research.
1. ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
2. HEALTHCARE RESOURCE ALLOCATION
 1. ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
It is defined as both a life-extending
and a life-saving medical
procedure in which a whole or
partial organ (or cells in cell therapy)
from a deceased or living person is
transplanted into another individual,
replacing the recipient’s non-
functioning organ with the donor’s
functioning organ.
 1. ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
Ethical Issue on Organ
Transplantation
One legal restriction on living organ
donation or the procurement of organs
from living persons is the practice of
making it illegal for persons to sell their
organs for transplantation.
 2. HEALTHCARE RESOURCE ALLOCATION
It refers to any goods or services
that can reasonably be expected to
have a positive effect on health.
They include medical resources such
as medical drugs, procedures, and
treatments, as well as the resources
necessary for the normal growth and
functioning such as resources used
for pollution control, shelter, and food.
 2. HEALTHCARE RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Because healthcare resources are
usually scarce, as in the case of organs
for the transplantation, not all who need
them will be provided accordingly.

One prioritization principle states that

patients should be prioritized in terms of
their need for treatment. According to this
principle, priority should be given to those
in the greatest need.
 2. HEALTHCARE RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Another principle is based on the degree of one’s responsibility.
The higher the degree of one’s responsibility for one’s state of health,
the lower his/her priority over the needed healthcare resource.

Other principles of prioritization include the moral character of the

person.
1. EUTHANASIA
2. BRAIN DEATH AND PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE
 1. EUTHANASIA
• It is the intentional ending of
another's life from a benevolent
or kind motive. It is a deliberate
act undertaken by one person with
the intention of ending the life of
another person to relieve that
person’s suffering.
1. Active
2. Passive
 1. EUTHANASIA
a. In active euthanasia, a person (such
as a physician) directly causes a
patient’s death, such as when the
patient is given a lethal injection or
some pills.
b. In passive euthanasia, a person
simply allows a patient to die. This is
done either by withdrawing treatment,
such as when a life-sustaining
machine is switched off.
 1. EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia can be classified into:
1. Voluntary. It is done with the informed consent of the patient
whose life is being ended.
2. Involuntary. It is done against the will of the patient, or despite
the patient’s refusal to give his/her informed consent to the
procedure.
3. Non-voluntary. It is done on patients who do not have the
capacity to give, or to refuse to give, their informed consent to
the procedure. (e.g. comatose, brain dead patients)
 1. EUTHANASIA
• Ethical discussions on euthanasia concern the arguments
used to morally justify it and the preference for one form of
euthanasia over another. One such discussion concerns the
traditional preference for passive euthanasia over active
euthanasia. The argument for this preference claims that
there is a moral difference between these two forms of
euthanasia, which would make the attending physician
morally responsible in one form but not in the other.
 Principle of Double Effect
• There are instances where there is one action yet there are two
effects, one is good and the other is bad. A concrete example is
when a graduating student found out that she was pregnant. She
has to decide if she will continue pregnancy (which according to
the doctor is very sensitive) or abort the baby. If she will continue
pregnancy, the baby will live but her studies will be sacrificed. On
the other hand, if she will abort the baby, she can focus on her
studies but the baby will die. Here there is just one act available
yet there are two competing effects, a good and bad. On this just
any of the conditions is not satisfied then the act must not be
made.
 Conditions for the Principle of Double Effect:
1. The act must be good in itself or at least indifferent.

2. The good effect must precedes from the evil.

3. The intention must be good.

4. There must be a proportionate grave reason in doing the act. (there

is no other ways and there is a high possibility to success)
 2. BRAIN DEATH AND PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE

2. Brain Death and Persistent

Vegetative State
a. Cardiopulmonary Approach
b. Whole Brain Approach
c. Higher Brain Approach
 2. BRAIN DEATH AND PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE

a. Cardiopulmonary Approach is seen that a human person

is dead when the person’s cardiopulmonary organs (heart
and lungs) have irreversibly ceased to function.

b. Whole Brain Approach- a person is dead when his/her

entire brain has irreversibly ceased to function. A person
whose entire brain has irreversibly ceased to function, but
still breathing with the help of life support is what has been
called a brain-dead patient.
 2. BRAIN DEATH AND PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE

3. Higher Brain Approach- a person is already dead when

his/her upper brain has irreversibly ceased to function, even
though his/her lower brain continues to function. This means
that the person is no longer conscious, but can still breathe on
his/her own. Patients in this condition are described as being in
“persistent vegetative state”.
CONCLUSION
 To have life does not necessarily bring
humanity. are convinced that
life is basically important because every
sign of life is a sign of the soul, and the soul
for them is the basis of humanity.
 on the other hand, is the standard
for the rationalist. The existentialists puts
more weight on the aspect of man’s
responsibility to make one’s life a project
through choice and freedom. But in the end ,
there is no connection between life and
humanity, to live is a privilege which we
should live to the fullest because there might be
no second chances.
• Evangelista, Francis Julius N., et Mabaquaio, Napoleon M.
2020. Ethics: Theories and Applications. Mandaluyong:
Anvil Publishing Inc.

• Mahaguay, Jerwin. 2011. Philosophy of Man: Learn the

Basics: Tarlac: HistGoPhil Publication.

• Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. 1994. The History of Philosophy.

United States of America: McGraw Hill, Inc.