Study Pecorino Text Embedded: Go To Chapter 9

Study Pecorino Text Embedded Go To Chapter 9 Study

Study all types of Distributive Justice (6 or 7 total) and summarize each in one sentence with examples. The principles include: Strict Egalitarianism, The Difference Principle, Equality of Opportunity and Luck Egalitarianism, Welfare-Based Principles, Desert-Based Principles, Libertarian Principles, Feminist Principles, and others. Analyze their foundations, justifications, and applications, such as the distribution of charity funds after a disaster, considering which principle best supports a fair allocation. Incorporate a credible reference to support your analysis, and evaluate how these principles influence social and political debates, including liberalism and conservatism.

Paper For Above instruction

Distributive justice concerns how society allocates its resources, balancing fairness, equality, and individual rights. Several principles guide this allocation, each with distinct justifications and applications. The first is Strict Egalitarianism, which advocates for equal material distribution for everyone, based on moral equality, such as in a scenario where all citizens receive equal healthcare coverage regardless of their contributions. The second is The Difference Principle, proposed by John Rawls, which permits inequalities if they benefit the least advantaged, exemplified by progressive taxation that funds social welfare programs designed to uplift the poorest members. Equality of Opportunity and Luck Egalitarianism emphasize fair chances rather than equal outcomes, suggesting that individuals should have equitable access to resources and opportunities, such as subsidized education for disadvantaged youth, with personal effort determining subsequent wealth distribution. Welfare-Based Principles focus on maximizing overall social welfare; for instance, distributing funds to ensure the greatest happiness or wellbeing, like programs prioritizing mental health and poverty alleviation. Desert-Based Principles argue that rewards should be based on effort, contribution, or virtue, such as compensating workers proportionally to their contributions, following Locke's labor theory. Libertarian Principles uphold individual rights and voluntary exchanges, asserting that justice in holdings is achieved when property is acquired and transferred without force, exemplified by private property rights and free market transactions. Lastly, Feminist Principles highlight gender considerations and advocate for fairness that accounts for historical and social disadvantages faced by women, such as affirmative action policies to close gender gaps. These principles directly influence societal debates, notably between liberalism, which often supports welfare and equality, and conservatism, which emphasizes individual responsibility and traditional values. For example, during disaster relief, applying Rawls’ Difference Principle may justify reallocating resources to assist the worst-off, aligning with welfare-oriented policies supported by liberals, while conservatives may favor minimal intervention, emphasizing voluntary charity and individual effort. Understanding these principles enables a nuanced appreciation of social policies, promoting fairer and more equitable societal arrangements.

References

• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Dworkin, R. (1981). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.
• Miller, D. (1976). Social Justice. Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Liu, J. (2015). Justice and Welfare: The Foundations of Distributive Justice. Routledge.
• Miller, R. (1989). Distributive Justice: A Comment on Rawls. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(2), 149-172.
• Riley, P. (1987). The Offer of the Surplus. Clarendon Press.
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
• Hurka, T. (2007). Principles of Social Justice. Oxford University Press.