Hi dear scholars
Many scholars claim that the best criterion for distributional justice is based on deservedness.
But further philosophical contents show that deservedness has some shortcomings in it's evaluation of proportional rule between the activities as base of deservedness and the things being defined as rewards.
Furthermore, besides person's efforts and practical capabilities in work, there are other factors defining the whole consequences of actions in market; such as supply and demand and competition in market.
I want to know whether there are some philosophical solutions in this regard or not.
Thanks for your attention and contribution;
Hossayn
The real question is one of COMPETENT AUTHORITY. Who is to say what you or I deserve for our efforts, for our products, or in our lives?
In a free market, each of us decides these things for ourselves. If I think a car dealer DESERVES $20,000 for a new car, I will pay it. If I am on a jury and I find a thief guilty I can decide how much jail time is appropriate.
You may see things differently.
In a free society there is not one final authority for what is right and just. We call can determine these things for ourselves in many different circumstances.
Social justice warriors often look around and try to decide for the group what they proclaim is just or unjust, as if pontificating from on high. Seeking to find the one-size fits all solution to these problems.
The idea that a group or a majority can decide what justice is for all invites trouble.
If my son steals another child's bike, I may have him return it to its owner with an apology.
Another parent may have their child return it, and then also beat their kid.
A third parent might he happy their kid got away with a bike stolen from a rich family because they are very poor.
So which parent is right? Which result was justice, and who is to make the judgement?
Thanks a lot Mr. Fritz.
It seams to me that your answer is integrated and complete in postmodern era, with all required examples. And you are right in your thinking paradigm. It was very impressive to my research; Thanks!
But to proliferate the discussion more, let me oppose you by presenting another claims in another paradigms.
Probably we can call some deservedness base for efforts to have some deservedness as reward for having some benefits for others. If we can establish the link proportionally (and based on a universal human reason), we can conclude that we have a deserved-based justice claim.
As I know up-to now, there are 2 solutions in this regard:
1) to define an institutional entitlement (post- institutional solution) by law or covenant
2) by relating the whole or some part of profit/rewards to the agents, according to their percent of contribution, which could be judged:
A) directly in each transaction as done in satisfaction of the buyer and purchaser.
B) by a prior institutional entitlement rule.
Furthermore there are some other ideas for justice as in heavenly religions that claim God is just and complete form of justice, could be reached in the hereafter.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics