PROJECT GED0061

INSTRUCTIONS: Read and understand the distributive Justice theories below. Also,
read and reflect on the Allegory of the carolers (not the true title). Find out what theory each
member stand by relating them with the theories of “Distributive justice” Support your
answer.
Font: Arial 12
Short Folder
Deadline: Nov. 25

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of an
allocation or, more broadly, to how people judge what
they receive

THEORIES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

EGALITARIAN JUSTICE- This theory claims that a certain distribution is Fair if every
member of a group receives an equal share of the distribution. On the level of the
state distribution, this view has 2 versions: Political and economic egalitarian.

Political egalitarian – all citizen should enjoy the same legal rights guaranteed by
the state such as suffrage, education, and due process.
Economic egalitarian – all citizens should enjoy the same basic economic goods or
resources (those necessary to live a decent life) guaranteed by the state. For
instance, every citizen regardless of skin color and ethnicity should be avail to avail
of the various forms of economic assistance provided for by the state for those
who need them.
Socialist justice (Sometimes referred to as Socialism) Claims that
certain distribution is fair if every member of a group receives his/her shares of
the distribution according to or in proportion to his/her needs. (The greater one’s
need the greater his/her share)
This view seeks to balance off natural inequalities

CAPITALIST JUSTICE…Sometimes referred to as Capitalism

This theory claims that a certain distribution is fair if every member of a
group receives his/her share in the distribution in proportion to his/her
contribution to the success of the goals of the group. The greater one’s
contribution the greater should be his/her share in the distribution. (This is
the kind of justice exist od thrives in the free-market system where the
monetary value of goods and human labor is determined by the market
forces.) ex. A salesman who is able to sell a large quantity of his/her
companys products will be rewarded well.

JUSTICE AS FAIR OPPORTUNITY

According to this theory, a certain is fair if every member of a group
receives his/her share in the distribution according to or in proportion to the
effort he/she has exerted in achieving the goals of the group. Here the
greater one’s effort the greater his/her shares in the distribution (John
Feinberg argued that the proper criterion for a just distribution is something
that everyone should have a fair opportunity to achieve or work for in a
varying degree.

UTILITARIAN JUSTICE.
Consistent with its theory of morality. Basically, contends that any
distribution is fair so long as it results in the maximization of the aggregate
good or welfare of all persons involved in the distribution. Good or welfare
maybe in the form of happiness, desire for satisfaction. Or improvement in
the quality of life, - anything regarded to be inherently good.
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
As advance by John Rawls (1993), This theory claims that a certain
distribution among the members in a group is fair if the principles that
govern such distribution were chosen by the members in a fair manner
(impartial or objective manner)

LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE

As advance by Robert Nozick (1993) Libertarian Justice or Entitlement

theory, claims that distributions are fair when no moral rights are violated in
acquiring and transferring ownership of the goods to be distributed. (No
moral rights- specifically property rights – are violated. That is the owner of
these things acquired the properties in morally correct means).

THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAROLLERS

During their Christmas break, Adam, Karl, Joel, Stuart, John and Robert. All
senior high school students, went caroling for a number of days until
Christmas Eve. When Christmas Eve came, they gathered all the money
from the activity to divide it among themselves. And so, everyone received
an equal share of the total amount. They were all happy about it; Afterall
they have all shared the idea that their close friendship was a sufficient
reason to entitle each of them to an equal share of the money. In our own
culture, we usually call such scheme of dividing things as “hating
Kapatid” where “kapatid is understood as “ hindi ibang tao.”
But let us imagine a different scenario. They all agreed to divide the
money fairly but not equally; and each had his own view on how it should
be done. Let us then further imagine that this was how the discussion on
the matter proceeded. ADAM arguing that his share should be bigger than
everyone else, for being the one who had the most beautiful voice in the
group, He believe that he had contributed the most to the success of their
activity. Karl disagrees with Adam. He pointed out that Adam being already
blessed with having wealthy parents did not really need much money. Karl
further noted that since singing was Adam’s natural talent, and that Adam
loved to showcase it. Adam should already be grateful for the mere
opportunity that the group gave him to showcase his talent. But Karl did
not stop here. He shared with the group that his mother was seriously ill
and his father just got laid off from his job. Indirectly, he was suggesting
that since he was the one who needed the money the most, he should be
given the biggest share.
Joel disagreed with both Adam and Karl. He explained that their needs
and natural talents were not things that they were personally responsible
for; hence, it would be unfair if these considerations would be made as the
bases of distribution. Joel then suggested that the basis be effort or work
as this was something that everyone had an equal opportunity to perform
well or not. He ended by saying that he might not have a naturally good
voice and his needs were not as great as Karl’; but he was the one Really
worked hard for the group which included, among others, gathering them to
form a group, follow up on everyone during practices, and deciding on what
songs to include in their repertoire. Having said all these, he was indirectly
suggesting that he deserved to have the biggest in the distribution.

Stuart on the other hand, had a different take on the matter. He

reminded his friends that the ultimate objective of the whole activity was for
them to be happy as a group. The activity, he emphasized, was a
collective effort and not an individual one. In this light the welfare of the
group should take priority over individuals welfares. He claimed that what
was important was not what each would get individually, but what would
maximize the overall happiness or welfare of the group, even if this would
mean sacrificing the personal happiness of certain individual.
John and Robert for their part, disagreed with all the suggestion
made thus far. The two did not think of the outcome of the distribution
(whether everyone would get their share according to their contributions,
need, or effort, or what would bring greater happiness to the group) as an
important consideration. What was important for them was how the
distribution was done. According to them, if the process is fair, the
outcomes, whatever they are will be naturally fair as well. They however,
differed on what they exactly meant by fair procedure.
 For John fair process meant fair choice of the principles or standards
that would govern the distribution. By fair choice, he meant a choice that
was unbiased and not self-serving. To elaborate on this point, John pointed
out that so far, each suggested a standard that would be most beneficial to
himself given this particular situation in life.
For Robert it meant that the distribution does not violate the moral
rights of the participants in his viewpoint, if a distributive pattern (say
according to contribution, needs., etc.) would be imposed to ensure a
desired outcome, some moral rights would be violated. He gave his own
case as an example. Some of their neighbors to whom they had sung
Christmas carols had given him some money apart from what they gave to
the group. This was in appreciation of the good things his father being a
leader in their community had done for their neighborhood. Robert had
decided to place the money he received separately to the group’s common
fund to be divided among themselves. However, he clarified that if he
instead decided to keep the money for himself, the group had to respect it
because it was his moral right. For the group to force him to place his
money to the common fund would be to violate his moral right.

INSTRUCTIONS: Read and understand the distributive Justice theories given above,
analyze and reflect on The Allegory of the carolers (not the true title). Find out what theory
each member stand by relating them with the theories of “Distributive justice” Support your
answer.

QUESTIONS:
1. In his argument about group’s happiness and collective effort, STUART anchored his
idea on what theory of Distributive Justice. ?
2. ADAM being blessed with a good voice, his arguments implies a theory of
Distributive Justice. What theory can be applied in this case?
3. JOHN statements about “fair choice” is grounded on what theory of Distributive
Justice?
4. KARL, (looking on his predicaments and personal circumstances in life) speaks his
idea based on what theory of Distributive Justice in regards to the kind of distribution
he is suggesting?
5. ROBERT after placing some money he received separately to the
group’s common fund stands on a particular theory of Distributive Justice
given the frame of mind he has. Apply a distributive theory on this.
6. What theory of Distributive Justice JOEL has based on his arguments about fair
distribution?

Evangelista & mabaquiao Jr.( 2020)., Ethics Theories and Applications, Anvil Higher education, Mandaluyong City, Phils