#21 = Distributive Justice

What do you think about distributive justice?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• philosophy
• science
• religion
• politics
• just
• correctness
• rightness
• fair
• equality
• wealth
• kailabreece

[refwise]

Quoting Aristotle and various texts this guy claims to tell us what the 'truth' is. At the end of the day he ventures a right wing opinion suggesting that redistribution of wealth (no matter how lazily or ill gotten) is bad. I don't buy it.

[kailabreece]

@refwise Mr RefWise, u dont have to "buy it." But if u disagree, explain why? Tell me which points u see as contentious. Also, I hope u understood my position... basically it was that I support "equal opportunity" but NOT "equal outcomes." I support a FREE Nationalized Higher Education system (thats as left wing as one can be) but I oppose taxation in order to redistribute wealth. Regardless, please tell me what u didnt like or get... refuting my video with NO counter points just sounds empty?

[refwise]

@kailabreece - thanks for the video and the opinion .. I was just thinking there isn't enough on Youtube on the topic of distributive justice. Regarding your point. It seems to boil down to 'those who work hard and those who do not work hard receive an equal share' versus 'the richest 10% own 80% of wealth' .. and you opt for the latter. Of course nothing is perfect but we should aim for a centralised entity that we trust to deal honestly and accountably with a reality of greater complexity.

[kailabreece]

@refwise Regarding the disparity in wealth, I dont think redistribution is the way 2 fix that trend. The wealthy have greater financial opportunities that allow their money 2 make more money. Earnings from the stock market r reinvested 2 produce a larger return. Those that r poor, dont have resources 2 enhance their economic position. Rather they r forced 2 spend the remaining income on items that wont produce wealth & will depreciate. The goal shouldnt b 2 redistribute but teach opportunity.

[purpleflowerx]

Interesting statements, but I did not hear anything new. it is a shame that the American mind is being wasted in the same ideas that are not really leading to any solutions. I could ask millions of people in America a similar question and it would just seem as people possessed a micro chip with the same exact answer containing the same exact words.Have Americans been socialized to think and act like politicians? Are we trying to appease our selfs more than anything?

[kailabreece]

@purpleflowerx Interesting comment, but I did not hear an opinion of your own. I'm not even sure what you're referring to... I'm willing to guess you don't either. Please, make a comment with substance or do not comment at all. Any "waster american mind" can be critical, but very few can provide solutions or ideas. Have you any?

[brainpolice2]

Good video. In the sense of pure equality of resource distribution or wealth, I think that distributive justice is both utopian and unjust because it inherently clashes with other more fundamental senses of justice (such as the individual rights of those who carry the burden of being distributed from rather than distributed to) and it is an attempt to plan and model society in defiance of its more organic distributions. All such plans will not be able to adapt to the changes within society.

[Malthus0]

Society by definition is not an entity that can be held to account since society is a spontaneous order which is a state of affairs that has no goal or end.(created by human action but not by human design). Social justice or justice as desert only makes sense in a made order where people are commanded what to do, since the distribution in such an order is the result of deliberate design and not just a state of affairs. Only then does a 'just distribution' become a meaningful concept.

[vvbn7890]

Nice vid. Dont know how often you're online, but Im writing a paper on dist. justice right now, and would love to hear your 2cents if you hit me up via PM

[kailabreece]

@iamthewalrus1599 Good point friend.

[iamthewalrus1599]

States of affairs are generally accepted in philosophy as collections of individual events. Certainly human actions (or in-actions) are relevant to justice. A society which refused to act to defend one of its own cities would be considered to have acted unjustly, even though they took no action at all. A state of affairs characterized by large-scale inaction to alleviate poverty (especially among children who are not at fault) could easily be in violation of norms of distributive justice.

[kailabreece]

Very beautiful comment friend. Thank you.

Thoughts certainly worth a sit down...