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.

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).

scholarly journals ‘A fair go’ in public policy

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bromell
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Financial Literacy ◽  
Ideal Theory ◽  
The Political ◽  
Retirement Income ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Public Reasoning ◽  
Political Spectrum

In the context of the 2013 retirement income review (CFLRI, 2013), Kathryn Maloney and Malcolm Menzies from the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income put the question to me: what does ‘a fair go’ mean in public policy? I mentioned this in a chance conversation with Colin James, who suggested tackling the question in an active, verbal sense (‘a fair go’), rather than attempting to elaborate on ‘fairness’ as an abstract noun. Consequently, this paper does not propose ‘a theory of fairness’ as a proxy for, say, a theory of distributive justice, or a theory of social justice, even a non-ideal theory of justice (cf. Arvan, 2014; Simmons, 2010). My aim is more modest: to provide a framework for public reasoning in contexts where there is argument across the political spectrum about whether a public policy gives people who are affected by it ‘a fair go’.  

Social Justice and the Poor

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Economic Institutions ◽  
Moral Standard ◽  
The Poor

What is social justice? Social justice, or distributive justice, is a moral standard by which some people judge political and economic institutions. Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on how well these institutions serve the interests of the...

scholarly journals The Role Of Islamic Courts In Land Reforms In Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (- 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ataullah Khan Mahmood ◽  
Ghufran Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Land Reforms ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Vested Interests ◽  
Land Holdings ◽  
Economic Well Being ◽  
Islamic Courts

A vast majority of Muslim scholars opine that land reforms including the fixation of ceiling on individual land-holdings can be carried out without offending any Islamic teachings. Moreover, article 253 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to prescribe the maximum limits as to property or any class thereof which may be owned, held, possessed or controlled by any person. Likewise, such reforms are considered essential as for as requirements of distributive justice is concerned and to further the desired Islamic goals of social justice, eradication of social evils and to ensure economic well-being of the poor attached to earth. To achieve these desired goals, land reforms laws were introduced in the country. However, the beneficiaries of feudalism and landlordism challenged these laws in the Islamic Courts to protect their vested interests. These judicial forums were split in their findings regarding the fate of these laws. This article analyses the findings of these forums to suggest that weather those who uphold these laws have stronger reasons.

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.

Torts and Other Wrongs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Law

Torts and Other Wrongs is a collection of eleven of the author’s essays on the theory of the law of torts and its place in the law more generally. Two new essays accompany nine previously published pieces, a number of which are already established classics of theoretical writing on private law. Together they range across the distinction between torts and other wrongs, the moral significance of outcomes, the nature and role of corrective and distributive justice, the justification of strict liability, the nature of the reasonable person standard, and the role of public policy in private law adjudication. Though focused on the law of torts, the wide-ranging analysis in each chapter will speak to theorists of private law more generally.

In-cash Transfers: from Passive to Empowered Beneficiaries in the Global South

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Katarina Pitasse Fragoso
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Poverty Alleviation ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Cash Transfers ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
The Public ◽  
Local Public Services ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Public Policy Decisions

Over the last few years, there has been an increase in discussions advocating in-cash programmes as a way to alleviate poverty. Indeed, this represents a leap forward in comparison to in-kind programmes. However, little progress, at least in developing countries, has been achieved in answering the question of how the state should transfer the means of redressing deprivation to those who are living in poverty. This article addresses this issue by challenging anti-poverty programmes through a social-egalitarian framework. My main argument starts from the perspective that in-cash transfers are a necessary but not sufficient mechanism for poverty alleviation. I acknowledge that cash alone does not guarantee the poor an equally active role in influencing the public-policy decisions that affect their lives. I then suggest a participatory device to complement the cash-transfer proposal in order to give institutional opportunities to the poor to decide, together with practitioners, what should be done at the level of local public services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document