The Social and Institutional Bases of Distributive Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
Economic Production ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Trade And Exchange ◽  
Cooperative Institutions

This chapter argues that distributive justice is institutionally based. Certain cooperative institutions are basic: they are necessary for economic production and the division of labor, trade and exchange, and distribution and consumption. These background institutions presuppose principles of justice to specify their terms, allocate productive resources, and define fair distributions. Primary among these basic institutions are property; laws and conventions enabling transfers of goods and productive resources; and the legal system of contract and agreements that make transfers possible and productive. Political institutions are necessary to specify, interpret, enforce, and make effective the terms of these institutions. Thus, basic cooperative institutions are social; they are realizable only within the context of social and political cooperation—this is a fixed empirical fact about cooperation among free and equal persons. Given the nature of fair social cooperation as a kind of reciprocity, distributive justice is primarily social rather than global in reach.

Property-Owning Democracy and the Difference

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social System ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
State Capitalism ◽  
System Property ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice

AbstractJohn Rawls says: “The main problem of distributive justice is the choice of a social system.” Property-owning democracy is the social system that Rawls thought best realized the requirements of his principles of justice. This article discusses Rawls’s conception of property-owning democracy and how it is related to his difference principle. I explain why Rawls thought that welfare-state capitalism could not fulfill his principles: it is mainly because of the connection he perceived between capitalism and utilitarianism.

Liberalism and Distributive Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Western World ◽  
Liberal Society ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
The Social ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Political Philosopher

This volume of essays addresses a wide range of issues in contemporary political philosophy, from the different branches of liberalism and their relation to capitalism, to the basic institutions of a liberal society that underwrite political and economic justice. Samuel Freeman is a leading political philosopher and one of the foremost authorities on the works of John Rawls. This volume contains nine of his essays on liberalism, Rawls, and distributive justice. Freeman organizes his chapters into a narrative arc: from liberalism as the dominant political and economic system in the Western world, to the laws governing interpersonal transactions in a liberal society, to the broad social and political structures that determine distributive justice. Freeman analyzes the primary differences between the classical and high liberal traditions; shows why libertarianism is not a liberal view; argues for the social rather than global bases of distributive justice; demonstrates why Rawls’s difference principle supports a property-owning democracy rather than welfare-state capitalism; and shows how Rawls’s liberal principles of justice and the difference principle are to be applied in both ideal and non-ideal circumstances, effectively responding to criticisms by Amartya Sen, G. A. Cohen, and others.

International Ethics within the International Social Contract

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy E. Eckert
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
International System ◽  
Choice Situation ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
International Ethics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Initial Choice ◽  
International Social

The social contract tradition derives its ethical force from the hypothetical agreement that parties would reach in an initial choice situation. This initial choice situation brings together a description of the circumstances of justice, various extra-contractarian moral assumptions, and an instrumental theory of rational choice. The circumstances of justice refer to the conditions that require principles of justice. These conditions include the existence of social cooperation along with moderate scarcity. In the absence of such conditions, principles of justice are either unnecessary or impossible to sustain. Social cooperation generates both benefits and burdens, and it is the allocation of those components of social cooperation that requires principles of justice. The application of the social contract to the domestic context dates back to the ancient Greeks, though their version of the contract was somewhat crude and rather one-sided in favor of state authority. Later versions of the social contract would oblige the state to provide much more to citizens in return for their allegiance. John Rawls is widely credited with resurrecting the social contract tradition in the twentieth century. His thought holds special significance for the international social contract, as he extends the contractual approach ethics into the international system where his predecessors declined to do so.

Justice below the State: Civil Society as a Site of Justice

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 915-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Cordelli
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
The State ◽  
Nation State ◽  
International Level ◽  
The Social ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
A Site ◽  
Private Associations

In response to growing economic and political interdependence at the international level, contemporary theories of justice have debated whether the demands of distributive justice extend beyond the nation-state. This article addresses the reverse question: whether and how the demands of justice arise below the state, at the level of civil society associations. This question becomes pressing in light of the increasing fragmentation of national governance, and the resulting institutional interdependence between political institutions and private associations. The article argues that the extent to which these associations are directly bound by egalitarian principles depends on a complex set of factors, including their structure and size, their role in the social provision of important goods, and their institutional relation with political institutions.

Political and Distributive Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Van Shoelandt ◽  
Gerald Gaus
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Political System ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
Special Relation ◽  
Reasonable Disagreement ◽  
The Social

To most philosophers, unmet claims based on distributive justice imply a political injustice—some have a complaint of justice against their political system. This article explores a variety of views about how this connection may be grounded or qualified: political institutions may be one tool among others to realize an independent good, distributive principles might regulate the distributive activities of political institutions, or distributive principles might apply in light of a special relation of a political institution and its members. We also consider a view prevalent in the social contract tradition that, in light of reasonable disagreement, one cannot demand that shared political institutions conform to one’s own contentious distributive theory: members must seek terms with which all can live, even though such terms may not be anyone’s most preferred possibility.

Cosmopolitanism and the Environment

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Caney
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
General Level ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Just Society ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Henry Shue

The last 35 years have seen the emergence and defense of “cosmopolitan” accounts of justice and political institutions. This chapter examines the relationships between three leading cosmopolitan accounts of distributive justice (those of Charles Beitz, Henry Shue, and Thomas Pogge) and the environment. It further aims to explore at a more general level how cosmopolitan accounts of distributive justice need to consider both the environmental impacts of realizing their principles of justice and the environmental preconditions of realizing them, so as to ensure that their vision of the just society is sustainable and that humanity is not living beyond its means. Having examined the relationship between cosmopolitan accounts of justice and the environment, the chapter concludes by analyzing the relationship between cosmopolitan accounts of political institutions and the environment, exploring the implications for sovereignty and the scope of democratic institutions.

On diversity in the social sciences: Why homogeneous research groups are an ethical mistake

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nusbaum ◽  
Toby SantaMaria
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Good ◽  
The Social ◽  
Public Responsibility ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The scientific enterprise reflects society at large, and as such it actively disadvantages minority groups. From an ethical perspective, this system is unacceptable as it actively undermines principles of justice and social good, as well as the research principles of openness and public responsibility. Further, minority social scientists lead to better overall scientific products, meaning a diverse scientific body can also be considered an instrumental good. Thus, centering minority voices in science is an ethical imperative. This paper outlines what can be done to actively center these scientists, including changing the way metrics are used to assess the performance of individual scientists and altering the reward structure within academic science to promote heterogenous research groups.

СОВРЕМЕННОЕ РОССИЙСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО КАК ПРОСТРАНСТВО КОНФЛИКТА

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 92
Author(s):  
V. V. Gorshkova ◽  
A. A. Melnikova
Keyword(s):  
Middle Class ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Socioeconomic Development ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Western Society ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Social Conflicts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Modern Russian

The article considers the contradictions and conflicts that are characteristic of modern Russian society. The processes of social disintegration are analyzed and interpreted as a result of fundamental social and economic transformations. The problems of economic inequality are presented in the historical perspective in close connection with the previous stages of Russia's socioeconomic development. Significant polarization of the population is one of the most significant conflict factors in modern society, which leads to an increase in protest moods and may in the long term threaten social upheavals. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with the socio-economic situation does not lead to ideas of the unification and consolidation of society, but find expression in social conflicts. The emergence and development of social conflicts is influenced by a number of factors: economic, ethnic, religious. One of the most important characteristics of society is its social structure. After the collapse of the USSR, the previous social structure was abolished, and a new social reality was formed in Russia. When considering the stratification structure of society, most attention is paid to the middle class, which is considered the backbone of a stable society. The middle class in Russia is in the stage of formation, it is hardly possible to speak of a complete analogy with the middle class of Western society. The share of middle class in society can be estimated in different ways depending on the methodological approaches used by researchers. An important consequence of the transformation of the social structure was the problem of marginalization, since the dismantling of the old social structure and the slow formation of the new one put the social status and place in the division of labor system of many individuals into question. The sharp impoverishment of representatives of prestigious professions led to a reassessment of their situation, especially for the younger generation. When analyzing the origins of social conflicts in modern Russian society, it is necessary to consider the issue of the attitude of the broad masses of the population to power and national elites. It should be noted that power in Russia historically takes shape around specific leaders and does not have an institutional character. The most significant factor shaping the attitude towards the authorities and the elite in general in Russian society are the economic results of the market reforms that have taken place. Only a small part of the population believes that they won as a result of the changes that have taken place, the natural consequence of which is the population's distrust of the authorities and, in general, political institutions.

Diversity, Rationality, and the Division of Cognitive Labor

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Muldoon
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Additional Insight ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Social Structure Of Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Insight Into

Existing models of the division of cognitive labor in science assume that scientists have a particular problem they want to solve and can choose between different approaches to solving the problem. In this essay I invert the approach, supposing that scientists have fixed skills and seek problems to solve. This allows for a better explanation of increasing rates of cooperation in science, as well as flows of scientists between fields of inquiry. By increasing the realism of the model, we gain additional insight into the social structure of science and gain the ability to ask new questions about the optimal division of labor.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Economic Systems ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
Market Socialism ◽  
Central Values ◽  
Moral Conception ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of liberalism, which is best understood as an expansive, philosophical notion. Liberalism is a collection of political, social, and economic doctrines and institutions that encompasses classical liberalism, left liberalism, liberal market socialism, and certain central values. This chapter then introduces subsequent chapters, which are divided into three parts. Part I, “Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Economic Justice,” clarifies the distinction between classical liberalism and the high liberal tradition and their relation to capitalism, and then argues that libertarianism is not a liberal view. Part II, “Distributive Justice and the Difference Principle,” analyzes and applies John Rawls’s principles of justice to economic systems and private law. Part III, “Liberal Institutions and Distributive Justice,” focuses on the crucial role of liberal institutions and procedures in determinations of distributive justice and addresses why the first principles of a moral conception of justice should presuppose general facts in their justification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document