โ Scribed by Geoffrey Ross
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
This paper falls within the field of Distributive Justice and (as the title indicates) addresses itself specifically to the 'meshing problem'. Briefly stated, the 'meshing problem' is the difficulty encountered when one tries to aggregate the two parameters of beneficence and equity in a way that results in determining which of two or more alternative utility distributions is most just. A solution to this problem, in the form of a formal welfare measure, is presented in the paper. This formula incorporates the notions of equity and beneficence (which are defined earlier by the author) and weighs them against each other to compute a numerical value which represents the 'degree of justice' a given distribution possesses. This value can in turn be used comparatively to select which utility scheme, of those being considered, is best.
Three fundamental adequacy requirements, which any acceptable welfare measuring method must satisfy, are presented and subsequently demonstrated to be formally deducible as theorems of the author's system. A practical application of the method is then considered as well as a comparison of it with Nicholas Rescher's method (found in his book, Distributive Justice.) The conclusion reached is that Rescher's system is unacceptable, since it computes counter-intuitive results. Objections to the author's welfare measure are considered and answered. Finally, a suggestion for expanding the system to cover cases it was not originally designed to handle (i.e. situations where two alternative utility distributions vary with regard to the number of individuals they contain) is made. The conclusion reached at the close of the paper is that an acceptable solution to the 'meshing problem' has been established.
One of the most problematical and important difficulties in the field of distributive justice is the 'meshing problem'. To determine which of several utility distributions is the most just, many philosophers claim that one needs to employ two criteria: beneficence and equity. Simply stated, the 'meshing problem' is the difficulty encountered when attempting to aggregate these two parameters in such a way that one may determine which of two or more alternative utility schemes is the most just. Intuitively, we want a procedure which will pick the distribution (out of several) which comes as close as possible to maximizing both total utility and equity. Clearcut cases where one scheme is more equitable and beneficent than another present no problem. The difficulty arises when these two principles conflict (e.g. when scheme A is more beneficent but less equitable than scheme B). What is needed is a method which balances the equity vis-a-vis the beneficence of a given utility scheme and computes its Theory and Decision 4 (1974) 239-258.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Robert Nozick argues that Rawls's difference principle is liable to a fundamental instability. According to Nozick, an 'end-state' theory of distributive justice is any theory which holds that "the justice of a distribution is determined by how things are distributed (who has what) as judged by some