Theories of Justice Applied to the Pandemic: The Case of Vaccine Distribution

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 643-656
Author(s):  
Ricardo Tavares Silva
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
General Problem ◽  
Selection Criterion ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Commutative Justice ◽  
Social Goods ◽  
Vaccine Distribution

The problem of the distribution (in a broad sense) of the coronavirus vaccines – concerning the criterion by which the beneficiaries of the vaccine are selected – constitute a particular case of the general problem of the distribution of social goods. For this reason, it is necessary to discuss whether the selection criterion to be adopted is that of commutative justice or that of distributive justice and, consequently, whether the approach to the problem must follow an individualist perspective or a collectivist perspective, such as it happens regarding the general problem of the distribution of social goods. Therefore, problem of the distribution of the coronavirus vaccines is still a problem of social justice. In this essay, I will rehearse an application of each of these criteria to the problem at hand.

scholarly journals VON HAYEK AND ORDOLIBERALISM ON JUSTICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
MANUEL WÖRSDÖRFER
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Social Philosophy ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Literature Overview ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Commutative Justice ◽  
Freiburg School ◽  
Specific Contribution

Variations and disparities between von Hayek and Ordoliberalism can be detected on diverse levels: 1. philosophy of science; 2. setting dissimilar priorities; 3. social philosophy; 4. genesis of norms; and, 5. notion of freedom. Therefore, it is possible to make an important distinction within neoliberalism itself, which contains at least two factions: von Hayek’s evolutionary liberalism, and German Ordoliberalism. The following essay not only takes the neoliberal separation of different varieties as granted; it proceeds further. It focuses on the topic of justice and elaborates the (slightly) differing conceptions of justice within neoliberalism. Thus, the specific contribution of the paper is that it adds a sixth dimension of difference (which is highly interconnected with the differing conceptions of genesis of norms). In this paper, I emphasize the (often neglected) subtle differences between von Hayek, Eucken, Röpke, and Rüstow, with special emphasis on their theories of justice. In this regard, I focus not only on Eucken and von Hayek; in addition, I include the concepts of justice developed by Rüstow and Röpke, as well, and, in consequence, broaden the perspective incorporating Eucken as a member of the Freiburg School of Law and Economics, and Rüstow and Röpke as representatives of Ordoliberalism in the wider sense. The paper tackles these topics in three steps. After briefly examining and discussing the existing literature and providing a literature overview on the decade-long debate on von Hayek and Ordoliberalism, I then describe von Hayek’s conception of commutative justice; particularly, justice of rules and procedures (rather than end-state justice). Then, I examine Eucken’s, Rüstow’s, and Röpke’s theories of justice, which consist of a mixture of commutative and distributive justice. Then, I draw a comparison between the ideas of justice developed by Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow, and von Hayek. The essay ends with a summary of my main findings.

Durkheim on Social Justice: The Argument from “Organic Solidarity”

2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
LISA HERZOG
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Social Inequality ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
Organic Solidarity ◽  
Commutative Justice

This article reintroduces a long-forgotten argument into the debate about social justice: Durkheim's argument from “organic solidarity,” as presented inThe Division of Labor in Society. “Organic solidarity” is solidarity based on differentiation. According to Durkheim, it grows out of the division of labor, but only if the latter happens “spontaneously.” Social inequality creates obstacles to such spontaneity because it distorts prices, such that they are perceived as unjust, and it undermines equality of opportunity. Hence, Durkheim's argument connects commutative justice and distributive justice. The article argues that Durkheim's argument is plausible, interesting, and relevant for today. After presenting the argument, discussing its structure and methodology, and evaluating its plausibility by drawing on related contemporary debates, it focuses on the problem of theperceptionof social justice and the possibility of ideological distortions. It concludes by sketching the research program that follows from Durkheim's argument.

Intersecting Social Justices and Music Education

2015 ◽  
pp. 6-28
Author(s):  
Estelle R. Jorgensen
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Music Education ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
Divine Justice ◽  
Commutative Justice ◽  
Poetic Justice

In this chapter, responses to three interrelated questions are sketched: Why should music educators be interested in justice? What is meant by the term “social justice” and what are the sorts of social justice? How should music educators act on behalf of justice? The case is made for a multifaceted view of justice broadly construed. Aspects of distributive justice, communitarian justice, commutative justice, contributive justice, procedural justice, retributive justice, restorative justice, poetic justice, instrumental justice, legal justice, divine justice, and justice viewed through natural law are applied to notions of social justice from the perspective of education and music education. Several practical steps in working against injustice and toward justice in and on behalf of music education are offered.

Utilitarian Strategies in Bentham and John Stuart Mill

Utilitas ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Careful Scrutiny ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
Utilitarian Theory

The argument of this paper is part of a general defence of the claim that Bentham's moral theory embodies a utilitarian theory of distributive justice, which is developed in his Civil Law writings. Whereas it is a commonplace of recent revisionist scholarship to argue that J. S. Mill had a developed utilitarian theory of justice, few scholars regard Bentham as having a theory of justice, let alone one that rivals in sophistication that of Mill. Indeed, Gerald J. Postema in his bookBentham and the Common Law Tradition, argues that Bentham had no substantial concern with the concept of justice, and that what analysis of the concept there is in Bentham's thought is unlike the utilitarian theory of justice to be found in chapter five of J. S. Mill'sUtilitarianismAlthough Postema's interpretation is not the only one that will be addressed in this paper, it serves as an important starting point for any rival interpretation of Bentham's ethical theory for two reasons. Firstly, it is the most comprehensive and most penetrating discussion of Bentham's utilitarian theory, drawing as it does on a wide variety of published and unpublished materials written throughout Bentham's career. Secondly, it is interesting in this particular context because the contrast that Postema draws between Bentham's and Mill's theories of justice depends upon a particular reading of Mill's theory of justice and utility which is derived from recent scholarship and which is by no means uncontroversial. As part of the defence of the claim that Bentham had a sophisticated theory of distributive justice, it will be argued in this paper that the contrast drawn between Bentham and Mill does not stand up to careful scrutiny, for insofar as Mill's theory of justice can be consistently defended it is not significantly different from the utilitarian strategy that Bentham employed for incorporating considerations of distributive justice within his theory. This is not to claim that there are not significant differences between the theories of justice of Bentham and J. S. Mill, but it is to claim that whatever technical differences exist between their theories, both writers saw the need to incorporate the concept of justice within utilitarianism. Therefore, rather than showing that Mill is an interesting thinker to the extent that he abandons his early Benthamism, by demonstrating how close Mill's theory of utility and justice is to that of Bentham, it will be possible to argue that Bentham employed a sophisticated and subtle utilitarian theory that was responsive to the sort of problems which occupied Mill a generation later.

scholarly journals Axel Honneth and The Reconstruction of Justice: An Attempt to Overcome the "Distribution Paradigm"

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Stanley Souza Marques ◽  
Marcelo Andrade Cattoni De Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Reciprocal Relationships ◽  
Individual Life ◽  
Axel Honneth ◽  
The Social ◽  
Normative Reconstruction ◽  
Set Up

The article takes up the criticisms directed by Axel Honneth to the basic structure of the dominant conceptions of justice, but merely to point out the general outlines of his alternative project of justice normative reconstruction. If John Rawls and Michael Walzer structure theories of distributive justice very consistently and in order to get to the autonomy protection (already taken so) in a more sophisticated way, that to be satisfied it transcends the (mere) obligation of not interfering in the realization of individual life projects, Honneth proposes the radicalization of justice's demands. It is because he pays his attention to the mutual expectation of consideration. This point would be the new texture of the social justice. In this sense, the principles of fair distribution leave the scene to make way for principles which guidelines are directed towards the society basic institutions involved in a new goal: to set up favourable contexts for the success of plural reciprocal relationships.

Introduction

Free Time ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie L. Rose
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Free Time ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Liberal Egalitarianism ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Distribution Of Resources ◽  
Conception Of The Good ◽  
Contemporary United States

This book defends the idea that workers are entitled to a fair share of free time. Contemporary liberal egalitarian theories of justice have implicitly assumed that how much leisure time citizens have is not an appropriate concern of a liberal theory of justice. The liberal proceduralist approach to distributive justice is to ensure that all citizens have fair access to specific goods, the particular components of one's particular conception of the good, by ensuring a fair distribution of resources, the all-purpose means that are generally required to pursue any conception of the good. The book asserts that citizens have legitimate claims to free time on the basis of the effective freedoms principle, a foundational tenet of liberal egalitarianism. This introduction discusses some relevant features of the distribution of free time in the contemporary United States and provides an overview of the chapters that follow.

Social Justicitis

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Tomasi
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Adverse Reaction ◽  
Allergic Reaction ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Spontaneous Order ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Bee Sting ◽  
Adequacy Condition

This chapter examines what it calls “social justicitis”—a strongly negative, even allergic, reaction to the ideal of social or distributive justice. Social justicitis is a malady from which many defenders of private economic liberty suffer. For libertarians, arguments on behalf of social justice may be as threatening as a bee sting is to some people. In the case of classical liberals, social justicitis arises as an adverse reaction to talk about social justice at the level of public policy. The chapter first considers the notion of distributional adequacy condition from the perspective of classical liberalism and libertarianism before discussing the arguments of classical liberals and libertarians regarding property and the poor. It also explores F. A. Hayek's critique of social justice and the implications of his theory of spontaneous order with respect to distributional ideals.

Laws and How They Affect the Everyday Lives of People with Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-73
Author(s):  
Rhoda Olkin
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Everyday Lives ◽  
Disability Laws ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
The Disabled ◽  
The Impact

For persons who are minorities, the impact of laws can be very directly experienced in day-to-day life. The myriad laws related to disability are scattered across many laws and throughout many agencies and can be hard to locate. Some of the laws, rules and regulations help, but some also hinder, the daily lives of the disabled. How the labyrinth of laws places a burden on people with disabilities is highlighted. There are four activities in this chapter. The first has students focus on laws that affect their everyday lives. In the second activity the concept of ‘separate but not equal’ is the focus. A third activity entails a comparison of social justice versus distributive justice as it applies to disability. In the fourth activity a game of ‘Eye Spy’ concentrates on the application of disability laws.

Compassion as a Political Virtue

2002 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Whitebrook
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Political Context ◽  
The Political ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The place of compassion in political thought and practice is debatable. This debate can be clarified by stipulating ‘compassion’ as referring to the practice of acting on the feeling of ‘pity’; in addition, compassion might best be understood politically speaking as properly exercised towards vulnerability rather than suffering. Working with these understandings, I contrast Martha Nussbaum's account of the criteria for the exercise of compassion in modern democracies with the treatment of compassion in Toni Morrison's novels in order to suggest how compassion can be viewed politically. In respect of distributive justice and public policy, in both cases compassion might modify the strict application of principles in the light of knowledge of particulars, suggesting an enlarged role for discretion in the implementation of social justice. More generally, compassion's focus on particulars and the interpersonal draws attention to the importance of imagination and judgement. The latter returns a consideration of compassion to the question of the relationship of compassion to justice. In the political context, although strict criteria for compassion are inappropriate, principles of justice might work as modifying compassion (rather than vice-versa, as might be expected).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document