Global Distributive Justice

The paper discusses the problem of global distributive justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of distributive justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of distributive justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's "duty of assistance to burdened societies" cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of distributive justice.     

Luck and the Domain of Distributive Justice

相似文献   

Distributive Justice and Enviromental Sustainability

Andrew Dobson has outlined three conceptions of environmental sustainability: the 'critical natural capital' conception; the 'irreversibility' conception; and the 'natural value' conception. He has also attempted to map out the various 'dimensions of social justice'– his purpose in so doing being to analyze the 'encounter' of each conception of environmental sustainability with the points on his map. Not surprisingly, Dobson concludes that as one moves from the 'critical natural capital' conception through the 'irreversibility' conception to the 'natural value' conception of 'sustainability', the 'points of contact' with his map of 'the dimensions of social justice' are found to 'become fewer and further apart'. In this article I argue that Dobson is fundamentally confused in his reason for thinking why this is so. I also argue that a core argument he deploys concerning future generations cannot do the work he requires of it.     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

基于机会平等的分配正义

分配作为人类重要的社会活动,不仅关系到社会成员的经济状态,更对人们的社会权利和地位产生巨大的影响。在现代文明社会中,分配正义的伦理意义在于:如何在不侵犯社会成员自由的前提下,为人们带来应得的利益,保障、捍卫社会成员之间的平等地位和权利。在社会的层面上,平等是分配正义的首要伦理价值。福利、资源、权利(能力)都是分配的主要对象和领域。福利平等、资源平等、权利(能力)平等,似乎都可以在一定程度上作为正义分配的依据,但又都面临着各自平等理论的困境。文章从机会平等的角度,对分配正义进行了理解、研究和考察,并且构建了复合机会平等分配体系,力图实现作为机会平等的分配正义。     

阿马蒂亚·森的分配正义观

阿马蒂亚·森的分配正义见解 ,以主体为中心 ,一方面强调分配上的能力本位 ,主张源头的产出保证 ;另一方面 ,注意分配是外部条件 ,提倡分配过程中的权利平等。这是对罗尔斯正义论的具体化 ,是从经济伦理学的视野对分配正义的新认识。但是对能力及其与效用关系的解释上 ,需要进一步完善。     

Rawlsian and Confucian Distributive Justice and the Worst Off

Philosophia - In any complex human society, distinct persons may have strikingly different standards of living. Those who lead the most undesirable, poorest lives in society can be called the worst...     

Nationality, Distributive Justice and the Use of Force

To whom do we owe obligations of distributive justice? In the last decade a number of distinguished political theorists — such as David Miller and Yael Tamir — have defended a nationalist account of our distributive obligations. This paper examines their account of distributive justice. In particular, it analyses their contention (a) that individuals owe special obligations to fellow-nationals, (b) that these obligations are obligations of distributive justice and (c) that these obligations are enforceable. Miller and Tamir's justifications, I argue, do not support these claims. Moreover, I argue, (a) and (c) should only be accepted in a greatly qualified form and (b) should be rejected altogether. The paper thus concludes that the nationalists' preferred account of distributive justice is untenable.     

论马克思的分配正义思想

马克思关于分配正义的思想是我们深入理解与准确把握当代中国分配正义问题的思想基础与理论前提.在马克思的视阈中,"分配"既具有经济学、社会学意涵,又具有哲学的形上意蕴.资产阶级以"劳动决定权"为前提,在分配中注重程序、忽视结果的"平等权利",其结果是造成分配的不正义.正义的分配应该超越"平等权利",以人的全面发展为分配原则与价值目标,使人真正享有人类文明与社会进步的成果,创造更为丰富的社会财富.     

From Bodo Ethics to Distributive Justice

Concern with material equality as the central form of distributive justice is a very modern idea. Distributive justice for Aristotle and many other writers for millennia after him was a matter of distributing what each ought to get from merit or desert in some sense. Many, such as Hume, thought material equality a pernicious idea. In the medieval village life of Bodo, villagers knew enough about each other to govern relations through norms, including, when necessary, a norm of charity. In more complex modern societies, economic destitution cannot so well be handled by individual charity, but now it can be handled by states. Hence, we begin to conceive of the idea of distributive justice as driven essentially by concern for material equality. The difference in state capacities is largely epistemological: states today can know much more about their citizens.     

Distributive Justice and Clinical Trials in the Third World

One of the arguments against conducting human subject trials inthe Third World adopts a distributive justice principle found ina commentary of the CIOM'S Eighth Guideline for internationalresearch on human subjects. Critics argue that non-participantmembers of the community in which the trials are conducted areexploited because sponsoring agencies do not ensure that theproducts developed have been made reasonably available to theseindividuals.I argue that the distributive principle's wording is too vagueand ambiguous to be used to criticize any trial. Furthermore,the mere fact that an experiment does not fulfill this particulardistributive justice principle does not entail that it isunethical.     

Kant on International Distributive Justice1

This paper concentrates on the way Kant's distinction between duties of right and duties of virtue operates at the interstate level. I argue that his Right of Nations (V ölkerrecht) can be interpreted as a duty to establish a kind of interstate distributive justice (that is, as a duty to secure states in their independence and territorial possessions), which is called for to secure domestic distributive justice and to protect individuals' freedom and private property. Or at least this is ‘ideal theory’ for, as I specify, this cosmopolitan linkage is compromised by Kant's endeavour to accomodate the existence of non-republican states.     

马克思分配公正思想的逻辑生成 ——基于《哥达纲领批判》视阈

马克思关于生产方式决定分配方式的历史唯物主义观点是认知和建构分配公正的逻辑前提。在共产主义社会第一阶段,要以创造价值的劳动为基本尺度实行分配,即按劳分配,虽然以劳动为尺度对社会总产品进行分配的原则超越了"按资分配",但按劳分配也是特殊公正论,仍然是形式公正,是初步的、非完全意义上的实质公正。分配的实质公正——按需分配,只有在共产主义社会高级阶段才能实现。