Talk:Distributive justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
I believe this could be said more clearly. It might be difficult for younger students to understand what you're saying here. Perhaps something along these lines would be more understandable..
Distributive Justice - this attempts to answer the question why do rich people have so much stuff.. is that fair? They go about evaluating this fairness in two different ways, which are arbitrarily (although aptly called) 'end-state theory' and 'entitlement theory'.
End-state - looks at the end state of stuff.. Like what do you own now? do you own a lot of stuff? and lots of other people don't own a lot of stuff? well then it stands to reason that stuff in general hasn't been Distributed Justly.
Entitlement - says well hold your horses don't take all my stuff! I worked long and hard for that stuff.. and if you were only capable of understanding how that stuff came to be in my possession you would see that indeed it has done so justly.. thus the just distribution of stuff can only be evaluated if you understand how people acquired that stuff.
- 1. please sign your comments. 2. WP is an encyclopedia. It's not directed at 'younger students', and the jolly style you adopt above isn't particularly appropriate. --Sam Clark 13:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- While this conversation is likely dead, I still agree with Sam Clark on this one. I would personally place a {{tone}} template on any page written as you propose. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to maintain the formal tone excepted of an encyclopedic article. For articles which may be easier to read for children, you may want to try the Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks! thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Comments on Justice
Editors interested in this topic might like to comment on my proposed renovation of Justice at Talk:Justice. Cheers, --Sam Clark 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] October revision
I just went through the article and tried to expand it a small amount, and reorganize some sentences to give it a better flow. I've been doing that for about an hour, and I think that at this point I would like to call it done for now - and ask someone else to go over the version now and give a second opinion/edit to modify anything I muddled. - Sam 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples of Distributive Justice
Should there not be a discussion of particular popular theories of Distributive Justice. e.g Justice as Entitlement - Classical Liberalism/Conservatism and modern thinkers like Nozick. Justice as Equality - 'true' Socialism/certain elements of Anarchism. Justice as Need - Marx; "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
82.18.226.22 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Justice and utilitarianism
This article says that anyone who has utilitarian ideas will use the ideas of distributive justice. Personally, I would argue that the opposite is true. You see utilitarianism is concerned with what is useful whereas distributive justice involves doing what is equitable. And what is useful is often completely different from what is equitable. For example capitalism could be argued to be useful, but certainly not equitable. Most utilitarians would argue that equity isn't inherently desirable at all, that happiness and happiness only is. I therefore really disagree with the article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlyduffman (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
