Abstract

In this well-argued little volume, the author carefully states and criticizes the prevailing theories of distributive justice, then goes on to articulate his own original and nuanced account. His bases for criticizing other theories and justifying his own are the common intuitions people have about what is just and what is not. Thus much of his criticism takes the form of showing that a theory sanctions certain distributions as just which we would all regard as unjust. Bowie defines the problem of distributive justice in terms of conflict of competing claims: the question about just distribution arises only when there are not enough goods and services to satisfy everyone’s desires for them. In criticizing current theories of justice, utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and socialism, Bowie shows that all three types of theory are too exclusive in that they distribute on the basis of one value only, and thus cannot rationally decide conflicts which arise from values other than the one they are based on. Thus utilitarianism cannot do justice to the claims of equality; egalitarianism to the claims of freedom from coercion; socialism to the claims of liberty, merit, or ability.