How much Inequality Is Just? On the Justification of Political Redistribution in John Rawls and Michael Walzer more

Few questions have shaped the history of political thought as much as how to accomplish a just order of human societies. Since ancient times, the debate has always centred about the means by which various desirable goods - such as power, wealth or certain freedoms – ought be distributed among the members of a given society. Following the Aristotelian concept of distributive justice, the discussion of inter-subjective, reasonable principles helping to promote this idea has continued unabated. In contrast, the demand that any political order rest upon a certain degree of equality among its members represents a significantly younger insight. Ever since the days of the Enlightenment, the extent to which all individuals share the same rights and obligations has remained highly controversial: For instance, should future, yet unborn generations today be entitled to the same rights as current ones? And doesn’t the inviolable core of universal human rights suffer more from its continued expansion than it gains? Contemporary political philosophy hasn't evaded these complex issues and in fact dealt with them in very diverse and sophisticated ways. It is within this context that this paper examines the key concepts of the said debates, justice and equality, in an attempt to address both in a somewhat inverse emphasis: It is asked which forms of social inequality can be reasonably regarded as just, and on what grounds. To this end, the study investigates how two of the most distinguished thinkers of our time, John Rawls representing the liberal and Michael Walzer as a representative of the communitarian school, justify and legitimize the politically steered redistribution of material and immaterial goods.