Distributive justice concerns what some consider being socially just with respect to the allocation of in a society. Thus, a community in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice. Allocation of goods takes into thought the total amount of goods to be handed out, the process on how they in the civilization are going to dispense, and the pattern of division.
Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes and consequences. A prominent contemporary theorist of distributive justice is the philosopher John Rawls, although this subject matter has now received wide treatment across philosophy and the social sciences (see James Konow, 2003).
Nozick provided novel accounts of knowledge, free will, personal identity, the nature of value, and the meaning of life. He also put forward an epistemological system which attempted to deal with both the Gettier problem and those posed by skepticism. This highly influential argument eschewed justification as a necessary requirement for knowledge;
Nozick’s Four Conditions for S knows that P was:
1. P is true
2. S believes that P
3. If it were the case that (not-P), S would not believe that P
4. If it were the case that P, S would believe that P
Nozick’s third and fourth conditions are counterfactuals. Nozick calls his theory the “tracking theory” of knowledge. Nozick believes that the counterfactual conditionals bring out an important aspect of our intuitive grasp of knowledge: For any given fact, the believer’s method must reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In this way, Nozick’s theory is similar to reliabilism. Due to certain counterexamples that could otherwise be raised against these counterfactual conditions, Nozick specified that:
3. If P weren’t the case and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether or not P, then S wouldn’t believe, via M, that P.
4. If P were the case and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether or not P, then S would believe, via M, that P.
Where M stands for the method by which S came to arrive at a belief whether or not P. Distributive Justice in Organizations
Distributive justice, a subcomponent of organizational justice, is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965). Outcomes of Distributive Justice Perceptions in Organizations
Distributive justice affects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Improving justice perceptions improves productivity and performance, (Karriker & Williams, 2009). Organizational citizenship behaviours are actions that employees take to support the organization that go above and beyond the scope of their job description.
OCBs are related to distributive justice perceptions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009). As organizational actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees are more likely to engage in OCBs. Distributive justice perceptions are also strongly related to withdrawal in which an employee leaves the organization due to perceptions of injustice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Distributive Justice and Wealth
Distributive justice considers the distribution of goods among members of society at a specific time, and on that basis, determines whether the state of affairs is subjectively acceptable. Distributive justice could be considered a means that addresses the burdens and benefits to some norm of equality to members.
However, not all advocates of consequentialist theories are concerned with an equitable society. What unites them is the mutual interest in achieving the best possible results, or in terms of the example above, the best possible distribution of wealth. Distributive Justice in Real Life Policies.
Proponents of distributive justice link it to the concepts of human rights:
(i) Resources that is available to the society. This includes financial and market considerations.
(ii) Everyone in society will receive equitable access to basic health care needs.
Distributive justice theory argues that societies have a duty to individuals in need and that all individuals have duties to help others in need. Many governments are known for dealing with issues of Distributive justice, especially countries with ethnic tensions and geographically distinctive minorities. Post-apartheid South Africa is an example of a country that deals with issues of re-allocating resources with respect to the distributive justice framework.