Variousprinciples may define how wealth are distributed. Equality, equity, and needare among the most common criteria.1 Anotherpossibility is to continue according to a principle equity, and distributebenefits in proportion to the individuals’ contribution.
2 Hence,those who make a greater productive contribution to society deserve to receivemore benefits. This kind of distribution is often associated with and economicsystem where the equal opportunity to complete. Distributive justice often seesthe outcome which is equality. John Rawls claims that person’s social status,family influences, place of birth are matters of luck that should notexcessively influence the result of benefits we receive. In contrast, RobertNozick, believes that distributivejustice is matter of marking out rules that individuals should follow inobtaining and transferring resources and benefits.3 Thepurpose of distributive justice is not to attain any specific outcome ofdistribution, but rather to ensure a fair process of exchange.
According to thetheory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused whenindividuals come to believe that their outcome is not balance with the outcomesreceived by people like them in similar situations.4 Societyhave a realization which they are at an unfair disadvantage from others, or inthe event of they are not receive fairness. Therefore, a question arise, howfairness and equality determine the distribution of wealth? This paper shalldetermine fairness and equality in comparison with approaches from John Rawls”Justice as Fairness’ and Robert Nozick’s ‘ Justice as Entitlement’. 1 Buttram R, Folger R, Sheppard B,’Equity, Equality, and Need: Three Faces of Social Justice’, (1995) Conflict,Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch, p.261.
2 Maiese M, Distributive Justice(Beyond Intractibility, June 2013), available at http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_justice (last access: 13 November 2017).3Ibid.
4 Deutsch M, ‘Justice and Conflict’,(2000) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, p. 43.