DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

SUBMITTED BY

ARCHE HANSE

UID: SM0116010

Faculty-in-charge

Mr. Saheb Chowdhury

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL ACADEMY, ASSAM

1
Abstract: Every individual in the society desire justice, distribution of justice in the society mainly looks into the
distribution of scarce resources. The resources distributed in the society is done through equal proportion scarce
resource or through merit based. Aristotle supported the merit based idea of distribution of scarce resource in the
society. An idea of the distributive justice is analyzed in the paper also Aristotle Merit based idea of distributive
justice is studied in the paper.

Introduction

It is the aspiration of every people in the society to lead a peaceful life without any sense of
injustice. But how do we define justice, can justice be define as people desire to self satisfaction
or justice when one’s own personal interest is harmed. This is not always the case, even in an
ideal civilized society there is a desire among people to achieve justice when something wrong is
done. Without the existence of justice there is a chance for the state to be unstable leading to the
rise of conflict. Mainly this conflict arises because of the lack of equal distribution of resources
in the society.

The struggle of power in politics is mainly because who gets to control common goods or
resources and how they manage to share it. Since the common goods and resources of a state
cannot be said to belong to any individual, hence it is to be distributed according to what is
judged to be in the interests of the common good, a decision which only political institutions are
fit to take. The justification of allocation of common good is often based on the idea of desert1,
need and merit.. The concept of deserte refers to the special treatment of someone either in the
form of reward or punishment.

The concept of distributive justice is somewhat related to the above statement. Distributive
justice is concerned with the fair, equitable distribution of common goods, benefits or burdens.
It span all dimensions of social and political sphere. Starting from income, power, tax, education,
clothing, shelter, health, gender, religious activities- everything is under the concept of
distributive justice.
But the question is how this distribution will be done whether it should be on the basis of equal
proportion or should it be done on the basis of merit based. The paper look into this idea of
distributive justice.

1
From the French word deserte, meaning to deserve.

2
IDEA OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Distributive justice is concerned with the fair allocation of resources among diverse members of
a community. Fair allocation typically takes into account the total amount of goods to be
distributed, the distributing procedure, and the pattern of distribution those results. Because
societies have a limited amount of wealth and resources, the question of how those benefits
ought to be distributed frequently arises. The common answer is that public assets should be
distributed in a reasonable manner so that each individual receives a "fair share." But this leaves
open the question of what constitutes a "fair share." Distributive justice generally deals with
wealth, power, respect etc. It can be combinations of these things too. In the context
of organizational justice, distributive justice is conceptualized as fairness associated with
outcomes decisions and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be
tangible (e.g., pay) as well as intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be
fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied. All workers of a company of equal
rank should be paid equally. This is an example of Distributive justice. Like this, there are many
examples in the society. The idea of a fair distribution of resources is generally linked to
concepts of human rights, human dignity, and the common good, and is grounded in what
civilization is said to owe its individual members in equal proportion. Governments continuously
make and change laws affecting the distribution of economic benefits and burdens in their
societies. Almost all changes, from the standard tax and industry laws through to divorce laws
have some distributive effect, and, as a result, different societies have different distributions.2
The ‘One Rank, One Pension’ movement in India, The taxation policy etc are too examples of
distributive justice. The concept of distributive justices lies in the fact that in this society,
everyone is equal. And therefore, the distribution of everything should be done equally. The
concept is widely related to the ideologies like Socialism, Communism, Egalitarianism, and
Social Justice Etc.

Theories of distributive justice need to answer some questions. The first question is what types of
goods are to be distributed? There are goods like wealth, respect, power, etc. Will the
distribution be combined of all these? Or it shall be like distribution among some and some will
not be distributed? Different ideology treats this concept differently. Equality is a fundamental

2
MISHRA, MANU AND OTHS., Distributive Justice & Its Relevance in Contemporary Times, Manupatra (pg 1)

3
element in the notion of justice and thus of distributive justice. In particular, all members of a
community equally have the right to respectful consideration when the problem of distribution
arises. This is a moral relevance of the ‘formal’ principle of justice: ‘Treat like cases alike’. But
for resolving problems of distributive justice, equality is a residual principle, outweighed by
other criteria and applicable only when those criteria are inapplicable or fail to yield any
conclusion. For the objective of justice is not equality but common good, the flourishing of all
the members of the community, and there is no reason to suppose that this flourishing of all is
enhanced by treating everyone identically while distributing roles, opportunities and resources.3

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions like who has the right to enforce
this distribution and all. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no favored
distribution4.

The egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be
elaborated in many different ways, just as to what goods are to be distributed-wealth, respect,
opportunity-and what they are to be distributed equally between-individuals, families, nations,
races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity
and for equality of outcome. It is one of the main theories of distributive justice. It affirms that
freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice. At a
cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the
past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism,
communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic,
political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. 5
In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve.
Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. Though the idea of distributive justice is very vast,
yet it is something achievable. Every society takes it as a moral value and wish to achieve
distributive justice.
ARISTOTLE ON DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
3
MISHRA, MANU AND OTHS., Distributive Justice & Its Relevance in Contemporary Times, Manupatra (pg 1)
4
The Principles of Distributive Justice Author(s): Arthur K. Rogers Source: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 28,
No. 2 (Jan., 1918), pp. 143-158 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2377534 Accessed: 06-10-2017 16:54 UTC
5
Distributive Justice, Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-
distributive/ First published Sun Sep 22, 1996; substantive revision Tue Sep 26, 2017

4
The idea of distributive justice was based on distribution in the society but Aristotle idea of
Distributive justice was based on merit. The teleological scheme that Aristotle had said was not
based on equal terms. Every person in the society has a different class and according to which
this distribution would be made. It is not based on equal proportion and merit according to him
could be rich in wealth like aristocrats and on the other hand the bourgeoisie or the peasant class.
Look at this notion the merit based distribution would result in concentrating the distribution of
opportunity or resources in the higher class group of people. So his idea of distributive justice is
different from that of the socialist of the present day where distributions were demanded on the
basis of equal proportion6.

Also another problem is that the Greek Athenian society that Aristotle talks about had the
existence of slavery and Aristotle’s Distributive justice based on merit would say that even if in a
democratic state a person is born in slavery he would deserve the distributive justice on his merit
and not that of equal proportion in the society. This would place everyone in their assigned place
and there would be no scope to achieve equal distribution of the scarce resource7. This eventually
leads to the chance for the rise in conflict in big states with huge population as the people in the
lower ranking on the merit based is always the majority and this majority group seeing all the
better opportunity enjoyed by them. Aristotle though did not takes which schemes of justice is
the best form he is merely saying that distributive justice done according to demand of the
political system which will lead to the respectful political status among the people.

The problem with distributive justice is that the philosophers and the thinker’s talks of the scarce
resource and distinguishes between the various class that the people which are subject to unjust
and just distribution. Also it applicable only under the condition of scarcity but we must also not
ignore the merit of having a distributive merit like giving a doctoral degree, scholarship based
merit etc.

6
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New
York, 9 Information regarding prices, travel timetables and other factual information given in this work are correct
at the time of first printing but Cambridge University ISBN-13 978-0-511-59483-0 eBook (EBL), Page number 133
7
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New
York, 9 Information regarding prices, travel timetables and other factual information given in this work are correct
at the time of first printing but Cambridge University ISBN-13 978-0-511-59483-0 eBook (EBL), Page number 324-
325