代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

Distributive Justice

2021-08-30 来源: 51Due教员组 类别: Essay范文

51Due教员组给各位留学生分享一篇纯原创代写范文essay,文章主要讨论鱿鱼出现不平等的问题,世界也进一步焦虑和冲突。一方面,人类无法拒绝现实生活中财富不平等和占有不公平所造成的饥饿和贫困。另一方面,人类正试图设计各种财富分配的正义原则,缓解因分配和权利问题而引起的一些局部冲突和社会矛盾。面对完全以市场为导向的进程,司法问题涉及许多领域。市场化程度导致了产权的转移和分化。物质条件的这一根本变化导致了人民基本权利和自由的变化。本文综合了功利主义、分配论和占有论关于正义与平等的观点,提出了全球化时代分配正义的非关系解决方案。

希望这篇可以帮助到各位留学生,同时需要代写也可以直接联系我们51Due客服vx(vx:Athey520)进行咨询。

In recent decades, the world has further exacerbated the anxiety, alienation, and conflict due to the emerging issue of inequality. On the one hand, human beings cannot reject the hunger and poverty caused by the inequality of wealth and the unfairness of possession in real life. On the other hand, human beings are trying to design various principles of justice regarding the distribution of wealth, and alleviate some local conflicts and social contradictions caused by the issue of distribution and rights. In the face of a completely market-oriented process, justice issues are involved in many areas. The degree of marketization has led to the transfer and differentiation of property. This fundamental change in material conditions has led to changes in fundamental rights and freedoms of people. In the face of a social reality of polarization, market competition, and deteriorating living conditions of the poor, what conditions are the acquisition of wealth and rights justified? Under what conditions, if any, might social or economic inequality be justified? During the distribution of basic elements related to wealth and basic rights, how to proceed in line with justice? This paper integrates the ideas of utilitarianism, distribution, and possession views about justice and equality, and proposes a non-relational solution to distributive justice in the globalized era.

After Aristotle the development of the Middle Ages, philosophers were more inclined to discuss the fairness of proportionality. Both Aurelius Augustinus (Albertsen, & Knight, 2015) and Thomas Aquinas (Dempsey, 2009) believe that justice is what individuals deserve. They put more emphasis on the equivalence of individual distribution, while Aristotle's natural law theory also influenced medieval theologians who regarded God's natural law as the inner life will and universal moral standards (Mathie, 1987). Along with the awakening of human rights consciousness, enlightenment thinkers believe that human freedom and equal rights are naturally endowed. The formation of a state by establishing a contract can protect human freedom and equal rights. However, in the field of social property distribution, enlightenment thinkers believe that human freedom is sacred and inviolable, and property rights are the same (Frazer, 2007). Therefore, they regard property rights as being obtained through labor. This kind of thinking is more explicit in modern utilitarianism.

The utilitarian principle is to increase the overall happiness. If the party is a specific person, then the utilitarian principle is used to enhance his or her happiness. If the party is a society, then the principle of utilitarianism is to pay attention to the happiness of the society (Kwon, Ryu, & Slottje, 2017). This embodies the emphasis on personal property and the leap forward in history, effectively preventing moral supremacy and dogmatism caused by empty talk about morality and obligations. The most crucial thing is the utilitarianism's value and rights by people. People confront their needs honestly, as Paul Heinrich Dietrich Holbach (Devellennes, 2014) believes that facing of one’s purpose is the summary of all morals. On the surface, utilitarianism seems to be the best choice for humans, but the problem in classical utilitarianism is that happiness becomes the only purpose worth pursuing, and nothing other than happiness matters as much (Schroth, 2008). Everything else is only a means to subordinate this purpose. So, maximum utility will be at the expense of the loss of some other rights of human beings. This is also the fundamental reason why utilitarianism has been criticized.

In the eyes of utilitarianism, however, the concept of justice is problematic. John Stuart Mill believes that one of the biggest obstacles to the idea of accepting utilitarianism or happiness as a standard in all times of thought is from the concept of justice (Aznar, 2015). Mill believes that justice is the standard for distinguishing between right and wrong, and there are often many confusions. There are different kinds of understandings and differences on issues such as justice and whether someone’s rights are due. The utilitarian standard of utilitarianism, instead, is in pursuit of maximum happiness not only conforms to people's self-interest, but also benefits the welfare of society. Therefore, justice is always the proper name for a certain social utility. This social utility is much more important than any other social utility. Therefore, its absoluteness and coercion are necessary. If the main system of a society is arranged to be able to reach the maximum net balance that everyone belonging to the society satisfies, then the society is just.

In Chapters on Socialism, Mill agrees with the socialist's criticism of the society at the time. Mill believes that in order to achieve a change in the unfair distribution of property, people must adhere to "the equitable principle" when establishing a new property system (Mill, 2009). That is, the balance between compensation and effort. Based on this principle of distribution justice, Mill believes that the property system means recognizing that people have the right to arbitrarily treated items that are produced according to their own labor output, and have right to obtain goods from others by lawful means. In Mill's case, property rights include two basic rights: the right of people to use their talents to produce goods through their own talents, and to exchange other items in a fair trade process. Another right is the right of people to voluntarily transfer them to others (Mill, 2009). Among the two rights, Mill believes that the former's rights are the foundation of the entire property rights system. Thus, Mill's redefinition of property rights is based on his proposed principle of distributive justice. It is based on this same principle that he advocates restrictions on people's land ownership.

Going back to Mill's discussion of property rights at the time. If the distribution system of private property at that time was very unfair, then he had two options. One was to reform private property rights, and the other was to abolish private property rights, that is, to implement the socialist system. The implementation of this system will greatly reduce the phenomenon of unfair distribution of wealth. For the latter option, Mill believes that the society at the time was not suitable for adopting a socialist property distribution system, given the moral and intellectual conditions of most people at that time (Mill, 2009). The socialist property distribution system needs to rely on the high standards of moral and intellectual conditions of the members of society. However, the moral and intellectual conditions of most people at that time were not suitable for adopting a socialist property distribution system. First, most people lacked collective consciousness and lacked responsibility and compassion for the collective. For them, personal interests were the most effective incentive. Thus, in order to achieve a more equitable property system and to promote public interest, Mill insists on restricting the right to land ownership on the basis of the principle of distributive justice. He also advocated that the government should provide the poor with the most basic help according to the minimum needs of people.

John Bordley Rawls believes that ethical practice requires universal ethical guidance. He believes that the common sense moral standard of utilitarianism is absurd. Rawls believes that a well-ordered society is a society that is designed to develop the goodness of its members and is effectively regulated by a public concept of justice. Here Rawls emphasizes the importance of respecting the equal rights of everyone, and utilitarianism believes that the right to freedom and equality can be waived for the good of society (Labukt, 2009). Kant also believes that rational nature exists as a free-spirited in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (Kant, 1998). Kant believes that human behavior is related to motivation, and morality is also related to motivation. The normative principles of Rawls's doctrine are influenced by Kant. Like Kant, Rawls also believes that a correct moral judgment depends not only on whether the behavior is justified, but also on whether the means of behavior are ethical.

Utilitarianism pursues the maximization of interests without considering the altruism of behavior. This moral judgment is wrong. Rawls's point of view is based on the utilitarian criticism. He believes that the nature of intention and the legitimacy of behavior are linked. A person’s behavior is only a legitimate act when it is ethically judged. Why does Rawls want to solve the problem of "equality"? This was inseparable from Rawls's personal background. The Theory of Justice was published in 1971. Rawls participated in the Pacific War of and served in the Philippines and Japan. Rawls had experienced the ravages of war. He did not agree with the US economic plunder and political aggression policies. He rejected war from the bottom of his heart (Fukuma, 2014). Thus, he expressed great sympathy for the inequality. The development of the monopoly economy in the United States makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Discrimination and inequality between races became major social problems in the United States at the time. Rawls sympathized with these weak people and hoped to give these weak people equal rights.

Rawls’ liberty principle considers that every citizen has the same fundamental freedoms to participate in the politics of the country and to develop a fair and just social system. Similarly, the right to freedom of the individual is also guaranteed by the social legal system. Freedom here is only basic freedom, not total freedom. Basic freedoms include political freedom, personal freedom, and freedom protected by law. Each of these basic freedom rights enjoyed by citizens should be equal (Rawls,1971). There is no right that some people enjoy wider freedom than others. Rawls believes that the rights to freedom enjoyed by everyone in political and social life are equal. He also sees the risks that some people may have higher authority due to the relationship between wealth and status, and develop a system that benefits them, thus having more benefits. As a basic free system, we must not only guarantee the equality of each individual's right to freedom, but also protect its fair value. Finally, as individuals, everyone exists in society, so they should enjoy the same moral rights. In short, everyone should have the right to freedom and be bound by the Constitution and the law.

Rawls also believes that some freedoms can be equally distributed, while other freedoms cannot. For example, positions, opportunities, social wealth. The society gives everyone the same opportunity to acquire these freedoms, but because of the difference between people, those with higher talents land in higher social status is dominant in social distribution, while those with lower ability are assigned to fewer interests, and distribution will inevitably lead to social inequality. The second principle of Rawls is mainly designed to solve this problem of social inequality. "The difference principle" is the most important content of Rawls's two principles, which has attracted criticism from many scholars. Obviously, the difference principle is to compensate those who are disadvantaged by family and class, have lower talents, and have less luck in a society's cooperative system (Quong, 2007). Rawls believes that people with higher talents should be obliged to help those in the society. He wants to increase the income of those with less wealth in society through social redistribution.

From the construction framework of Rawls's theory of justice, scholars criticize the setting of hypothetical conditions such as Rawls's "original state" and "just environment", and focus on the necessity of Rawls's hypothetical conditions. Many scholars believe that Rawls's assumptions are not necessary (Nill, 2010). Although the hypothetical conditions seem to make the content of the principles more cumbersome, if these hypothetical conditions are removed, Rawls's theory of justice will appear pale and weak. In other words, Rawls justice theory itself has great limitations. Rawls's "difference principle" also has limitations. The " difference principle" is proposed by Rawls to solve the economic inequality in society. It is mainly aimed at the interests of vulnerable groups in society. In reality, relative equality may move towards absolute equality quickly. The application of the difference principle in the real world may lead to an absolute egalitarianism. For some people with higher talents, this has created a new kind of injustice. And this is not conducive to the development of social productivity. Rawls's moral distribution method will inevitably lead to new social contradictions.

Robert Nozick also criticized utilitarianism. He believes that even if the goal of utilitarianism can minimize the total amount of social violations, the means used by utilitarianism itself may infringe on the rights of other individuals (Nozick, 1974). Nozick believes that individuals are goals, not just means; without their consent, they cannot be sacrificed or used to achieve other purposes or means. The utilitarian principle of distribution in exchange for the interests of the majority in exchange for the interests of the majority is clearly a disrespect for the free rights of people. However, Nozick is not like Rawls, either. Rawls emphasizes people at the bottom of society and tries to protect their interests, while Nozick believes that any individual's interests are inviolable, regardless of social class. People do not need to give up their rights for the benefit of others, and no one should sacrifice the interests of others to preserve their own interests (Wei, 2008). Nozick believes that individual rights are absolute and inviolable. Rights are not collective, and states cannot force individuals to make choices.

Nozick sees the shortcomings of Rawls's use of ethical issues to try to solve the justice problem of the political system. He believes that only by narrowing the functions of the state can the individual's rights be protected from infringement. Nozick's theory shows that property and human freedom are indivisible. Because of differences in people's talents, such as different personalities, different abilities, or differences in births, they can cause differences in status and social environment. Based on the gap between this natural and social environment, individuals may exhibit varying degrees of freedom. Those with higher natural talents and a better social environment may enjoy more freedom rights that match the level of cultural intelligence and social environment. Because they enjoy different rights to freedom, they may have different property rights (Exdell, 1977). In other words, people with greater freedom of rights are entitled with greater possession of property. Nozick tries to show that as long as the source of the property is justified, no matter how wide the gap between the rich and the poor, the government has no right to interfere with the personal property.

Nozick believes that justice comes from possession rather than distribution. He disagrees with Rawls's distributional justice. Nozick thinks we are not some children who awaits some adult to divide the large cake for us. There is no centralized allocation because no one has the right to control all resources (Waldron, 2005). So, he insisted on using possession justice to replace distribution justice. Whether Rawls or utilitarianism or Ronald M. Dworkin egalitarianism, proposing fundamental moral rights for all (Beauchamp, 2001), it is a modelling principle that interferes with people's freedom (Brennan, 2018). If you do not interfere with people's lives, the principle of any purpose or the principle of distributive justice cannot be realized permanently. Nozick believes that only the choice of freedom is the true justice. In fact, he generalized Adam Smith's economic justice to all social fields (Brennan, 2018). Compared to Rawls and Dworkin, Nozick is the most intolerant of the attempt to empower the state. The weakest state is the state with the highest degree of justice.

From the perspective of freedom, Nozick puts the individual's rights at the forefront of society, and also limits the rights of individuals in violation of moral boundaries. In Nozick's view, personal property rights are inviolable. We cannot sacrifice individual rights and give up our rights because of the right to life of others. In this sense, Nozick put property rights above life rights, which leads to his theory of justice falling into paradox (Schaefer, 2007). Nozick does seem to not care about social welfare based on his theories, we may even say that he cares little about the interests of vulnerable groups. What he cares about is the proper way of obtaining property. He believes that as the means of obtaining property is justified, and then the possession of property is just. Nozick's theory of justice embodies humanism at the theoretical level and promotes the liberation of human freedom. But at the practical level, he still regards people as a means and ignore the interests of the disadvantaged groups.

Most relational theories emphasize the role of "institutional relations" in stimulating the distribution of justice. They believe that it is precisely because a certain system (social, political or economic) substantially affects the lives of all people who obey the system through the distribution of benefits, that certain institutional systems link us to each other (Akhtar, 2009; Blake, 2001; Sangiovanni, 2007). This is enough to stimulate distribution justice. Moreover, the extent of the application of the institutional system determines the scope of application of justice. At the social level, there is a “shared institutional order” in the contemporary world. This order, however, is largely established by the ruling class. In fact, the existing order is kind of imposed on people in a certain sense. This shared institutional order is built by the rich and imposed on the poor (Pogge, 2005). Therefore, from the point of view of the distribution of justice, we have an obligation to ensure that the evolving institutional order at least meets the minimum living needs of all members of the society. Inequality based on this security may then be justified. on the contrary, when someone imposes an order on others, which hinders others from achieving their minimum standard of living, these people act injustice. At the same time, the setting of minimum standards should be constantly evolving with the development of society as well.

Contrary to the theory of relations, the typical non-relational theory holds that: Everyone has certain basic rights (such as the right to security and the right to life) simply because they are human beings. And people don't lose these rights because they happen to be in a different social group. If basic morality requires us to respect humanity or human dignity, then the basic fact that everyone has equal moral status implies the meaning of redistribution. Most non-relational theorists tend to make the request that everyone should have certain rights as a human being, regardless of whether there is an institutional order (Ladwig, 2013). The reason why distribution justice becomes related does not depend on the existence of a relationship. However, some theorists oppose that the theory of non-relation is somewhat impractical (Nagel, 2005). They would imagine a situation like this: There are two separate classes, they don't know each other's existence, and the lives of people in these two classes are very different. In this case, can we say that the inequalities in these two societies are unjust? Should citizens in rich class assume an obligation to reduce this inequality? The non-relational theory just advocates that in this case, although there is no specific relationship between the two and no sharing of certain institutional systems, the fact of inequality is sufficient to implement distributional justice.

Such redistribution manners are ideal, of course, for the current world. However, the difficulty in practice should not hinder people’s visualization of it. You cannot treat everyone unequally because of certain differences in “luck”, such as the gender, race, nationality, or class at birth (Lamont & Favor, 2016). On the contrary, it is precisely because they all share a "humanity," that they are all morally equal and should be treated equally. If we believe that all citizens deserve equal opportunities and should not suffer because of their race, class or gender at birth, then we should admit these obvious facts: Everyone is human. Therefore, no one should have more opportunities than others due to his or her luck (Caney, 2005). Caney further believes that this theory can be extended to the global level. It is unfair that a country is richer than another country simply because of its luck. Being luckier and getting wealthy earlier than other countries does not justify the current drastic inequality status within and among countries.

In conclusion, the main questions to be answered in the theory of contemporary distributive justice are: What do we have to acquire, and who should actually provide us with what we are entitled to? The answers to these two questions constitute the basic framework of the theory of distributive justice. It is certain that the utilitarian way of social wealth distribution is not suitable for the modern world due to the neglecting of individual rights. While Rawls justifies social and economic inequality through talents, Nozick justifies it with absolute individual freedom of possession. In general, Rawls’ justice of redistribution and justice in possession by Nozick both have some degree of “utopian” sense. Perhaps in terms of the applicability of the theory, the following arrangement makes sense: The government of Rawls theory applies to Western-European style welfare capitalism, and Nozick's theory applies to the American-style of competitive capitalism. Building on the two set of theories, the non-relational theory of global egalitarianism provides an alternative answer, which emphasizes on the intrinsic equality of all human beings and does not attempt to justify social and economic inequality. Regardless of their applicability, this debate shows the effort of the human society to evolve in different ways and in search of the optimal solution to equality.标签:代写,作业代写,北美代写,论文代写

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写assignment代写paper代写作业代写、论文代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的论文代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供论文代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:Human beings live in and with 下一篇:Corvus brachyrhynchos