( Six minute read)

I fear we are just scratching the surface when it comes to us understanding the above.

In theory, the most influential concepts of justice are egalitarian, ones in which the concept of equality plays a central role.

In practice, however, research shows that people are not so much concerned about equality, but about fairness.

And while we often articulate fairness in terms of “just desserts”, the concept of this metaphorical desert has been consigned by most theorists to the philosophical scrap heap for being difficult to measure exactly.

The Egalitarian Principle on regulating the distribution of wealth and income requires that we divide all goods in society equally, unless unequal distributions are to the benefit of the worst off.

A standard approach to social, political and economic problems is to identify stark inequalities between individuals, groups and countries as the root cause.

The solution is usually redistribution towards more egalitarian outcomes.

Yet, in philosophy, psychology and elsewhere, questions the wisdom of such solutions.

First, is equality valued for its own sake?

Consider a society in which everybody gets the same, but not enough.

This will not be valued more than a society with huge disparities, where there is sufficient for all. Moreover, we usually react to being unfairly disadvantaged, rather than simply to not getting the same.

Hence, restricting distribution to equal shares or conditioning unequal shares on being to the worst-off’s benefit, irrespective of how hard we each work, does not seem just.

If distributive justice is a combination of equal opportunities and fair reward for talent and effort, then outcomes are likely to be unequal.

In a meritocratic society social status is determined by “merit”, acquired through a combination of intelligence and effort leading to various significant social contributions.

If what we want are fair opportunities without unfair disadvantage, then meritocracy cannot be the answer.

There are goods which may fundamentally affect a person’s life (for instance, healthcare resources). We will want to avoid getting their distribution wrong. So we will allocate them on the basis of need.

Even if we could ascertain a person’s deserts accurately, there are still instances where this type of distribution seems undesirable.

Healthcare services and good education are essential for equal opportunity. They should be among the goods provided universally.

Yet, ignoring desert for all goods disconnects completely distributive shares from what we do responsibly. We should then distribute at least some significant goods (say, bonuses) entirely on the basis of just deserts. This would be one good mechanism for increasing social mobility.

Fairness matters:

Systematic unfair discrimination increases conflict and tension in societies and international community.

Fairness is importantly linked to responsibility and accountability. So a theory of distributive justice sensitive to desert is the way forward.

All of the above is a ruthless.

Because many of our most prominent institutions no longer consider fairness merit or justice and are intimidated and are distorting us all.

Our new political system are own by not the people but by big corporations with insatiable desires for money and power.

A war of all against all.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com