Thanks for your invitation. Dear Dr Al-Khafaji made a good point. To me, also, a prudent option would be option b, taking into account, from one point of view, that there are people who are physically or mentally unable and their contribution to the public good may be insignificant.

Regards

I personally believe point (c) should be considered. If every member get his part in relation to his achievements for the public good (principle of merit) then people will sit on their tows and work.

I think the link below is useful

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2010/09/principles-of-distributive-justice.html

Regrads, Azzam

This is a subjective opinion (MINE completely responsible :) )

Merit/all sorts , needs to be outlined carefully and based on the return of such benefits, so is distribution that is done ! This leads to non-uniform distribution yet the returns in the long run might be beneficial in greater numbers (expected) .

very good question. i follow

Good question. In my opinion, system must warrant equality, so a). But at the same time, contributions of individuals to community are evenly required.

Regards

Each of the options have their strengths and weaknesses. Option ' a' looks interesting as it looks at parallels without using one's achievements. Yet, it drags developing time back

In my opinion a better proposal.is ... c) every member get his part in relation to his achievements for the public good (principle of merit).

regards..

Reward equally all those people that really create the wealth.

Principally C may be supported by most, but what is the use of such discussion?

In NO country, any of these principle is followed practically impartially without bias and hypocrisy.

a is the options without any legpulling.

Being rich isn't about how much you have but having what you need. Thus, I take option "b" to help others live just like we do.

Option C

Thanks for your invitation. Dear Dr Al-Khafaji made a good point. To me, also, a prudent option would be option b, taking into account, from one point of view, that there are people who are physically or mentally unable and their contribution to the public good may be insignificant.

Regards

Thanks for the discussion! The three options are wrong from the perspective of equity.

Justice is a value of equity, and then, we can consider justice as equity. But, What is fair? Each person should have control over their own options, and they should be recognized and fully exercised.

Therefore, distributive justice from the perspective of equity should guarantee access and reach a fundamental learning to build a decent life project. But that is not enough. This should be combined with the value of inclusion to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a citizen (Sánchez-Santamaría & Manzanares-Moya, 2017).

Regards!

Dear colleagues, thank you very much for your answers, they all are important for our discussion and they are considered thoroughly. It seems to me we can only take a look at an often discussed problem in the last 50 years, and there is no perfect solution but a chance for reflection yet again. Not at all there exists only one solution of the problem, we know, but there are to consider aspects of our topic which you may find in a textbook on distributive justice. So my first proposal to discuss the problem here would be (similar to many other complex questions): "It depends on..." Yes, it depends on your preference a) to give either an absolute answer or to take into account the conflicting conditions of life in our modern time, b) to stress more the motive to be act as fairly as possible or to analyze the consequences of your decision. Of course, the option "equality" is the strongest motive in our feeling of justice, if there is to divide the cake in equal pieces for the children. But what to do if it is well-known that one child don't appreciate cake? (or another special condition which let us hesitate to use the principle of equality). Why is strict equality the most called principle? I think it is an archaic principle of justice and evolutionary heritage, the modest kind to act in a moral manner, because the normal situation is so that the powerful man and the leading groups of the community have more income and property than others.

As well-educated elite, we are scientists and researchers, we use not only a low level of ethic behavior but higher levels, so the idea is relevant that people who are as volunteers active for the common interest and welfare deserve a reward, and my own feeling of justice get a confirmation if such men and women get more of the precious cake. So we have to decide to discuss the problem on an absolute level (my question goes in that direction) or differentiate conditions of life, we have to develop methods which allows to transform absolute principles in the complexity of real life. In such processes, I suppose, our preference of equality when motiviated for be just in our acting to apply the principle of reasonableness, fairness and equity. And it is a high value and condition to be a good citizen if you can say: I live in a community were the government is making efforts in using for instance principles of equity, equality, need and desert.

For German reading RG members I load up an essay about "Bildungsgerechtigkeit" (justice in educational carrier), it is part of one of my RG-projects and there also accessible. Thank you very much for your participation.

I think all the options have no value if someone is not pious and self-aware; because self-awareness, moral uprightness, and relational transparency in the dispensation of justice is crucial. why because these attributes create contentment and sense of helping hand and remove greed and avarice which is the root of all evils. Then the leader becomes silk for oppressed and steel for the oppressor. Then he feels that the real purpose of this life is to serve humanity with egalitarian approach. But pragmatically, we humans are beasts in the garb of humanity, the extreme foes of ourselves.

A remark to José Sánchez Santamaria: I see the point, you would like to stress and I think that I understand your argument. Equity could be a guiding principle for motivation of reasonable acting, in all named options. It is not a factor of consequence. In some cases the alleged valuable good is not so much relevant, perhaps. The "precious good" is valuable only in a general sense, in individual circumstances the situation may differ. it could be that to be wealthy or to gain high positions in the societal ranking is not my aim of life, due to religious or moral reasons. My neighbor with a low income and a large family could be in a quite other situation. Also in a community we live in different worlds or relations). To respect equity is an intention of the donator (resp. government), it is good to know that the distribution of an action happens under fair conditions. But this requires that our mutual social interaction is based on empathy, so that the mutual needs and interests are recognized (so far as possible). This includes the reflection that a person with sustainable income (like an old German emeritus professor) at every time, gives much for charity, that's a matter of course, I think.

A note to Syed Saeed: Yes, I think the same, the religious factor could be very important: To be motivated to give other people (who suffer or have not satisfied needs) something back that you have experienced as a good life with your family, friends relatives etc. So in my view you are right.

Measured by the renewed flaring up of the latest discussion about the principles of RG score construction we have to assume that getting scores ("score greed") - which is put on a level of appreciation with much influence of your / our feeling of self-worth - is the "highest good" for RG members, I suppose. As I tried to explain earlier with the topic "distributive justice" there is it also possible for everyman to decide: RG scores may be interesting, but I am more interested not become too dependent on this weekly new coming enigmatic number. Ir should not damage my view and my self-appreiciation as researcher. I should like to forego such "rewards" - reacting like a rat in the Skinner box. It is also a chance to reactivate your self-awareness, your moral and spiritual freedom to say: Getting many scores is a "precious good", obviously, for many, but it would be a bad sign if my self-esteem is impaired by such things.

Well , not impressed Prof Retter , I am ok with low score but increase in score iff(if and only if) I write tech answers , this is what I meant (in my previous answer ) , this is too disappointing :(

To Apama Sathya Murthy: At first, thank you very much. It is not my intention to dominate any opinion about any discussed topic, yet really not the running RG topic "scores", but I can mention my own experience: If it happens that you accompany your daily scientific work with RG communication, noticing at the beginning of the week that your normal being busy has the consequence that your "reputation" (what a ridiculous RG-name of an intransparent and not exactly comprehensible process which creates a ridiculous figure with two decimal places!) has sunk twice in succession, then emerged the opportuniy to reflect your immediate disappointment with the insight: Am I mad or is RG mad? With a rest of self-appreciation you should judge, that you are totally normal, only our beginning conditioned reflex to be greedily thirsty on some RG reward is not normal. If RG wouldn't give some other compensation, it would be worthless. RG gives the opportunity of self-controlling, this includes to learn to exercise distance if necessary.