Suchergebnisse

Perspectives for a Theory of Need-based Distributive Justice -- Need-based Justice from the Perspective of Philosophy -- Identifying Needs: The Psychological Perspective -- Need-based Justice: A Sociological Perspective -- Collective Decisions on Need-based Distribution: A Political Science -- Need-based Justice and Distribution Procedures: The Perspective of Economics -- Towards a Theory of Need-based Justice.

Theories of distributive justice are most severely tested in the area of disability. In this book, Mark Stein argues that utilitarianism performs better than egalitarian theories in this area: whereas egalitarian theories help the disabled either too little or too much, utilitarianism achieves the proper balance by placing resources where they will do the most good.Stein offers what may be the broadest critique of egalitarian theory from a utilitarian perspective. He addresses the work of egalitarian theorists John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen, Bruce Ackerman, Martha Nussbaum, Norman Daniels, Philippe Van Parijs, and others. Stein claims that egalitarians are often driven to borrow elements of utilitarianism in order to make their theories at all plausible.The book concludes with an acknowledgmentthat both utilitarians and egalitarians face problems in the distribution of life-saving medical resources.Stein advocates a version of utilitarianism that would distribute life-saving resources based on life expectancy, not quality of life. Egalitarian theories, he argues,ignore life expectancy and so are again found wanting.Distributive Justice and Disability is a powerful and engaging book that helps to reframe the debate between egalitarian and utilitarian thinkers

"How should we design our economic systems? Should we tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor? Should we have a minimum wage? Should the state provide healthcare for all? These and many related questions are the subject of distributive justice, and different theories of distributive justice provide different ways to think about and answer such questions. This book provides a thorough introduction to the main theories of distributive justice and reveals the underlying sources of our disagreements about economic policy. It argues that the universe of theories of distributive justice is surprisingly simple, yet complicated. It is simple in that the main theories of distributive justice are just four in number, and in that these theories each offer a distinct, well defined theoretical approach to distributive justice; yet they are complicated in that the main theories disagree at several distinct, fundamental levels, and in that it is possible to spin innumerable new theories from the elements of the four main theories. Key Features: Covers the four major theories of distributive justice and their leading philosophers, elucidating the attractions and drawbacks of each: o F.A. Hayek and right-liberalism o John Rawls and left-liberalism. Robert Nozick and libertarianism o G.A. Cohen and socialism. Explains why these four theories have come to dominate most philosophical discussions on distributive justice, highlighting the essential answer provided in each that is lacking in other theories. Written for any reader coming up to the topic for the first time, with an annotated reading list at the end of each chapter and helpful glossary at the back of the book"--

This book presents and defends a novel theory of distributive justice, according to which political economic distributive justice reigns in a state if the government of that state ensures that citizens receive the benefits and burdens they deserve from it. The book starts with a more precise characterization of the target of this inquiry - political economic distributive justice. It then proceeds to explicate the concept of desert, evaluate proposed ways of justifying desert claims, formulate a number of desertist theories of justice, and draw out the special features of the version defended here. Once the proposed form of desertism has been stated, its implications are compared to those of egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, sufficientism, the difference principle, libertarianism, and prioritarianism, with the aim of showing that desertism yields more attractive results in cases that prove difficult for other theories currently being discussed in the literature. Arguments - especially arguments deriving from Rawls -- against desertism are explained and shown to be ineffective. There is discussion of the distinction between comparative and non-comparative justice. Emphasis is placed on the distinction between (a) theories about the moral rightness of distributions, (b) theories about the intrinsic value of distributions, and (c) theories specifically about the justice of distributions. There is discussion of the unfortunate results of confusion of these different sorts of theory. The views of Rawls, Nozick, Parfit, Frankfurt, Feinberg and others are discussed. A version of the method of reflective equilibrium is explained and defended. The book concludes with a series of admissions concerning puzzles that remain unsolved.--Publisher website

This book studies two distinct approaches to distributive justice. The firstoriginates from axiomatic social choice theory and studies positionalist aggregation functions. Profiles of individual extended orderings over alternative social states are mapped into a social ordering of these states. The informational framework of this procedure is ordinal and requires interpersonal comparisons of utility levels. The aggregation mechanism which is proposed can be characterized as a generalized ranking rule with a nonlinear weighting scheme, allowing an equity axiom to be satisfied. The second approach is rooted in axiomatic bargaining theory and uses cardinal individual utilities which are not required to be interpersonally comparable. The second path leads to a new characterization of the Gauthier solution for n persons that can suitably bedefined as a lexicographical maximin solution in relative utility gains. Again, an equity axiom proves to be useful. Both approaches are subjected to empirical investigations. In the first one, results from questionnaires are presented. In the second one, findings from laboratory experiments are discussed

Izhak Englard presents an authoritative account of the Aristotelian tradition of analyzing justice, from Aristotle to John Finnis and Richard Posner and retraces the intricate history of the distinction between corrective and distributive justice. While writing about Aristotelian notions of justice through the ages, the author's lens for this intellectual and legal survey are the perennially debated notions of corrective and distributive justice stemming from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.