With regard to the environment, distributive justice refers to the balanced sharing of society`s environmental risks, benefits and impacts. These problems include air and water pollution, congested landfills, industrial waste and other environmental pressures. Distributive justice in the environment is the crucial principle of sharing burdens and responsibilities for the health of the earth, as pollution, global warming and other environmental impacts have a negative impact on people`s health, reduce quality of life and decrease property values. Utilitarians face a more important problem than the theoretical one when it comes to determining which material distribution or institutional structure is prescribed by their theory. Those who share similar utilitarian theoretical principles often recommend very different distributions or structures to implement the principles. This problem arises for other theories, with recommendations for distributions or economic structures to be implemented often varying among proponents with similar theoretical principles. But proponents of other distribution principles tend to group together significantly in terms of what they recommend. This is much less the case for proponents of utilitarian and welfare-based distribution principles, with proponents scattered across the range of possible distributions and economic structures in their recommendations. For example, many preference utilitarians believe that their principle prescribes highly egalitarian structures with many state interventions, while other preference utilitarians believe that it prescribes a laissez-faire style of capitalism. Distributive justice in an environmental context is the equitable distribution of a society`s technological and ecological risks, impacts and benefits. These pressures include exposure to hazardous waste, land grabbing, gun violence and killings. [19] [20] [21] Distributive justice is an essential principle of environmental justice, as there is evidence that these burdens cause health problems, negatively affect quality of life and reduce the value of real estate.
Being the subject of extensive studies in philosophy and social sciences, several theories of distributive justice have inevitably developed. Although the three theories presented here – equity, utilitarianism and egalitarianism – are far from all, they are considered the most important. Libertarians argue that the principle of difference involves unacceptable violations of freedom, property rights, or personal property. For example, the differential principle may require redistributive taxation for the benefit of the poor, and libertarians often argue that such taxation involves the immoral assumption of just property (see Libertarian Principles). Most contemporary versions of the principles discussed so far give the market some role as a means of achieving the desired distribution model – the principle of difference uses it as a means of helping the weakest beneficiaries; utilitarian principles generally use it as a means of obtaining the distributive model that maximizes utility; Desert-based principles are based on the distribution of goods through the desert, etc. In contrast, proponents of libertarian distribution principles rarely see the market as a means to achieve a desired model, because the principles they advocate do not superficially propose a “model,” but rather describe the types of acquisitions or exchanges that stand alone. The market will be fair, not as a means of any model, but to the extent that the exchanges admitted to the market meet the conditions for equitable acquisition and exchange described in the Principles. For libertarians, the right results are those obtained by the righteous and separate actions of individuals; A particular model of distribution is not necessary for justice. Robert Nozick promoted this version of libertarianism (Nozick 1974) and is its best-known contemporary defender. If the rules could conflict in practice, Rawls says that principle (1) has lexical precedence over principle (2) and principle (2a) lexical precedence over (2b). As a result of the rules of priority, the Rawls Principles do not allow fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed in order to create greater equality of opportunity or a higher level of material goods, even for the poorest. While principle (1) can be seen as regulating the distribution of freedoms, it is generally not considered a principle of distributive justice because it does not govern the distribution of property per se.
Equal opportunities will be discussed in the next section. In this section, the focus is on (2b), the so-called principle of difference. Controversies over the provision of distributive justice usually arise when certain public policies increase the rights of access to services for some people, while restricting the real or perceived rights of others. Gender equality issues are then often seen in affirmative action policies, minimum wage laws and the opportunities and quality of public education. Among the most discussed issues of distributive justice in the United States are public welfare, including Medicaid and food stamps, as well as the provision of aid to developing countries abroad, and issues of progressive or progressive income taxes. The above is relatively uncontroversial, but what made Rawls` (and Barry`s) arguments so interesting is their claim that this line of reasoning actually leads to much stronger (and more controversial) demands for social justice. They note that even with formal equality of opportunity, there will be many factors over which people have no control, but which affect their economic prospects throughout life, as if a person`s family can afford to acquire quality education or health care. A society will therefore have reasons to adopt a more substantial principle of equal opportunities with equal opportunities for education, health care, etc.
– the same reasons it had for adopting a purely formal principle of equal opportunities. Egalitarianism is a philosophy based on equality, namely that all men are equal and deserve equal treatment in all things. The egalitarian theory of distributive justice emphasizes equality and equal treatment between gender, race, religion, economic status and political beliefs. Egalitarianism can focus on income inequality and wealth distribution in the development of various economic and political systems and policies. In the United States, for example, the Equal Pay Act requires men and women to receive equal pay for equal work in the same workplace. Jobs don`t have to be the same, but they have to be essentially the same. One of the simplest principles of distributive justice is that of strict or radical equality. The principle states that every human being should have the same level of material goods (including burdens) and services. The principle is most often justified by the fact that people are morally equal and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to realize this moral ideal. The principle of difference is also criticized as the main principle of distribution because it mostly ignores claims that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions.
Proponents of desert-based principles argue that some may gain higher levels of material goods because of their hard work or contribution, even if their unequal rewards do not also help improve the position of the less fortunate. Desert theorists as well as libertarians also argue that the explanation of how people access more or less favored positions is morally relevant to their fairness, but the principle of difference ignores these explanations.
