distributive justice

Please respond to this discussion post with nothing less than 500 hundred words. Thank you.



The way I see distributive justice is maybe not in the most positive light, but I’ll explain my point in a minute. I see the process of distributive justice as a way those in power to remain in power through the manipulation of society while justifying the action by making society believe that they’re benefitting from it at well. In a community where the best of the best is believed to be deserving of the best things, that leaves no possibility for growth in society. When given the example of the best flute player getting the best flute, it makes no sense to me because, in my opinion, giving the best flute to someone who is learning, gives them an opportunity for growth, rather than oppression. In a community where everyone is encouraged to grow and succeed, I believe there will be more successful than simply telling a community that they’re benefitting from the “actions” of the best.


When Aristotle brings to light the fact that women have no place in politics, and works to justify slavery, I must take the stance of disagreement. I do not believe that women should not have been allowed into politics, as their insight and opinions could have been incredibly life changing. I know that these were times, where the thought process is different, but just sit back and think about the possibilities that could have come from their ideas. When Aristotle justifies slavery, with the argument that there’s a necessity and it’s an individual’s “nature” to be a slave, it contradicts the theory of having our own free will, which is discussed in chapter 7 of our book. Who is determining that it’s in someone’s nature to be a slave? If it’s in regards to the teachings of Kant, unless I personally decide that it’s my destiny, that I was put on this earth to be a slave, then it should not be decided for me that it’s in my nature. I understand the argument of the necessity to have work done at home while others are deliberating, but I do not fully agree that it’s in a person’s nature to do this for someone else unless they’re making the decision to do so and being compensated for this.


If you break down Rawls theory, you can see that there is a big similarity to Aristotle’s thinking with the best going to the best. Rawls spoke of individuals being equal to one another, though one neighbor could be better off than the other, as long as there was some sort of “perk” for the lesser neighbor. Therefore the justification that the best should get the best, and society still benefits is to say that Rawls and Aristotle were on the same level of thinking, but have different explanations. When asked the question “If one is more advantaged economically than others in the community, does he or she owe others a piece of what we have earned?”, I believe that Rawls would agree that someone more economically advantaged would owe others a piece of that pie because their success should benefit the least well off member of society. Kant, on the other hand, would argue that the person owes nothing to society because it’s not their fault that they succeeded in life. In relation to Aristotle, Kant would say that if the best of the best have the flute, there is no requirement for the individual to play for society, and Rawls would say that they should play for society because then the lesser in that society would benefit from hearing the music and be better off than they previously were.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"