Related Ideas

A number of moral philosophers have suggested that some sort of moral pluralism is required to capture the complexity of the concept of justice. While almost all philosophers allow that justice must include a formal element (i.e., treat equal cases equally) and a material element, pluralism stresses complexity when defining the material element.

In the work of John Rawls, for example, an important degree of complexity is captured by his support for two principles: one guaranteeing liberty and the other guaranteeing that inequality will benefit the least well off group in society. Implicit here is the notion that both freedom and distribution matter for a full understanding of justice. Nor is it always true for Rawls that liberty is more important than distribution. In affluent societies, it is, but in poor societies, it is not necessarily so.

Nicholas Rescher argued for a theory that included several elements: both fairness and a consideration of the common good. Rescher recognized the various canons of justice that had been suggested in the past. He suggested that the various canons may be applicable to different kinds of distributions -- in other words, to different areas of life. Rescher also distinguished between a narrow view of justice as "fairness" and a broader view of justice that also considered the "common good." He sees the problem as one of "coordinating" utility and justice in the narrower sense.

Rescher also comments that under conditions of extreme scarcity, different principles may come into play. He suggests, for example, that one applicable rule may be "The number of individuals whose share of utility falls below the 'minimal' level is to be made as small as possible." This introduces another dimension of complexity -- the possibility of catastrophic circumstances. It suggests that justice in a state of catastrophe may be different from justice in normal circumstances.

Michael Waltzer has suggested a form of pluralism the recognizes different "spheres" of justice. Within each sphere a just distribution of benefits and burdens will be determined by different rules or canons.

All of these philosophers would agree that no single dimension of justice can completely capture all of our strongest moral intuitions on the subject.

Reference: