Product Description

Distributive justice in its modern sense calls on the state to guarantee that everyone is supplied with a certain level of material means. Samuel Fleischacker argues that guaranteeing aid to the poor is a modern idea, developed only in the last two centuries.

Earlier notions of justice, including Aristotle's, were concerned with the distribution of political office, not of property. It was only in the eighteenth century, in the work of philosophers such as Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant, that justice began to be applied to the problem of poverty. To attribute a longer pedigree to distributive justice is to fail to distinguish between justice and charity.

Fleischacker explains how confusing these principles has created misconceptions about the historical development of the welfare state. Socialists, for instance, often claim that modern economics obliterated ancient ideals of equality and social justice. Free-market promoters agree but applaud the apparent triumph of skepticism and social-scientific rigor. Both interpretations overlook the gradual changes in thinking that yielded our current assumption that justice calls for everyone, if possible, to be lifted out of poverty. By examining major writings in ancient, medieval, and modern political philosophy, Fleischacker shows how we arrived at the contemporary meaning of distributive justice.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #177548 in Books
• Published on: 2005-09-06
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 204 pages

Review
Fleischacker takes on the conventional history of distributive justice, more commonly called 'social justice' or 'economic justice.' Who first advocated giving material goods to the poor purely on the basis of need? Some histories attribute this line of thinking to figures as far back as Plato or Aristotle; others claim to find it in Rousseau. But Fleischacker convincingly demonstrates that the true origin of this idea is far more recent than we might think--and that the first great thinker to advocate it was none other than that tree-hugging liberal Adam Smith. Although the topic may seem dauntingly academic, the author has a readable, conversational style; the work of philosophers as diverse as Cicero, Hume, and Kant is discussed with energy, style, and wit.
--Steve Weinberg (The American Lawyer )

Engaging and very readable...This is a marvelous book which should be read by all social workers. By causing social workers to consider the complex issues the concept of social justice raises, Fleischacker's book may facilitate a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of what has become a central concept in the field. (Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare )

A Short History of Distributive Justice is marked by extensive research, careful thought, and clear exposition.
--D. D. Raphael (British Journal for the History of Philosophy )

Review
Fleischacker provides a fascinating account of the development of our contemporary notion of distributive justice. This is an excellent book that fills a real need.
--Stephen Darwall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and author of Welfare and Rational Care (20040301)

About the Author
Samuel Fleischacker is Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois, Chicago.

Customer Reviews

An Important Contribution to the Social Justice Discussion
This is a fine history of an important moral idea--distributive justice (also called "social justice" or "economic justice"). The book is concise and well written, and the author covers a lot of philosophical ground (from Aristotle to Rawls) in a mere 133 pp.

Professor Fleischacker points out that the notion of resource allocation within a society has only recently been discussed in terms of justice, and the idea of redistributing resources to meet everyone's needs was virtually unheard of until the late 18th century. Until this time it was widely believed that certain kinds of people should be deprived (so as to ensure their work ethic), or else that poverty was divinely ordained. Given this train of thought, it comes as no surprise that intellectuals of this period did not stay awake at night devising ways to redistribute the wealth.

A key thinker in reformulating our attitudes toward the poor was the 18th century philosopher and economist Adam Smith. This will surprise many, as Smith is usually viewed as the free market hero of the conservative neoclassical school of modern economists. Smith drew attention to the devastating effects of poverty on the lives of the poor. He suggested that it would be proper to tax the rich at a higher rate, and then use the revenues for public projects that would benefit the poor. One important use of these funds would be public schooling, thus enabling the poor to better their lot through increased knowledge and skills.

Smith's most important contribution was to counter the common "wisdom" of the time that the poor needed to be kept in this state or else they wouldn't work. Most Christians of this era still clung to a medieval notion that God had ordained a hierarchical order of society. The good people were at the top (through the grace of God), and the poor, inferior types were at the bottom (because God put them there). Smith strongly opposed this view, and he sincerely believed that the poor are just as virtuous and just as skillful (given the proper training) as the rich.

Kant and Rousseau were also helpful contributors to changing society's attitudes. The former was a major proponent of the idea that all human beings are of equal worth. Rousseau is justly famous for inspiring political programs that would benefit the poor. Social and political equality should be our goal. He thought that unjust hierarchy was perverting the human ideal.

The last chapter of the book discusses Marx, the utilitarians, and Rawls. The discussion of Rawls's "trimmed-down Kantianism" shows how his critique advanced the debate past that of Marx and J.S. Mill. The importance of the individual as analyzed by Rawls defines our modern notion of distributive justice. The chapter ends with a short discussion of Nozick's "libertarian challenge." Nozick wants no part of any concept of distributive justice, and he definitely does not like Rawls's theory.

In summing up, Fleischacker makes these important points (p. 130):

(1) Distributive justice depends on our believing in the moral equality of all human beings.

(2) All people need individual freedom.

(3) Our freedom depends on certain material goods.

(4) It is possible for the state to guarantee the distribution of these goods.

My opinion on the matter my be stated thus: this may seem like a liberal agenda, but in fact it is a humane solution founded upon solid research in economics, sociology, and political science. Philosophy, like life, is ultimately about values, and I think the author is to be commended on his.

I enjoyed this book very much. The ideas addressed are extremely important, and they are presented lucidly and intelligently. If I were teaching a course on social justice, this definitely would be required reading.

Recommended
This carefully written, stimulating book argues that there have been two notions of distributive justice in Western thought, and that the modern notion -- the idea that the poor have a right to state assistance and that governments have redistributive obligations toward them -- did not emerge until the late eighteenth century. Fleischacker says interesting things about a range of thinkers, including Aristotle, Hume, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Herbert Spencer, and Rawls, to name a few. He brings out for example the extent to which Adam Smith helped change the prevailing picture of the poor from one of relative disdain to one of greater empathy. The author also suggests that the sanctity of property rights was *not* the primary historical justification for opposing welfare programs, and that opponents of such programs therefore need to provide fuller arguments for the absoluteness of property rights in order to be convincing. The epilogue argues perceptively that "by learning the history of a moral idea we gain a better understanding of why we ourselves endorse or reject it" and maintains that history lets us know "what has happened to our values" while we have been pursuing our daily lives, preoccupied with other matters. This book is not the last word on its subject, but it's very worth reading if you're at all interested in the issues it addresses.