Merit and Distributive Justice

Merit and Distributive Justice

By: Kulsoom Basharat
Date: October 20, 2011
PAPA 6414

Growing up, my parents would always say whatever we have and whoever we are it is
not because of our own doing, rather it is solely due to what God has planned for us. Whether or
not one believes God is the master planner, it is clear that whatever we are born into (family,
geographic location, mental and physical state) we have no control over.
Being born with attributes of conduct worthy of praise and possessing sound moral
character- are examples of the nature vs. nurture philosophy. We are born with innate qualities
and traits which do contribute to society as a whole (distributive justice) but the credit does not
go to the person who possesses them.
If a young child is born into an improvised home but becomes a master at masonry- is it
because of his humble upbringing or is it because he was born with a natural talent for the work
he does with his hands? Or if a child was born into a family of highly educated parents and

Merit and Distributive Justice

becomes a recipient for noble prize for peace- or is it because he was born into fortunate family
which gave him all the tools he needed to excel, or was it because he was naturally gifted?
In Hayeks perspective he would argue that the child gets no credit for having been born
with desirable qualities than for having grown up under favorable circumstances.
Merit is not a matter of the objective outcome but of subjective effort.i
He states that there are factors that are beyond human control and then there are factors that we
may be able to alter. To Hayeks point- there could be a child born into a home that cultivates
growth and provides the best opportunities for success yet the child chooses to be a mischief and
not take advantage of the tools given to him to better his life are to his own fault and contributes
to what becomes of him.
Hayek discusses certain advantages rest on human arrangements- and that we cannot
provide the same advantages for all; and just because some are given these advantages, others are
not deprived of them. He states that significance should be placed on the family life, inheritance
(genes or monetary) and education when and if merit is a basis for distributive justice. It is the
resources one uses to better themselves to should be taken into account to give merit.
Rawls discusses that we do not have any hand in receiving distribution of native
endowments any more than we have control of the family we are born into. Rawls states that if
one becomes successful in life it is because he/she was born into an environment that equipped
them with the tools to be prosperous. Rawls states everyones character is based upon their
upbringing and should not be credit to the person themselves.
Rawls further elaborates that people who are more social and confident have a better
character and thereby are more prone to being wealthy and successful which obviously is not

Merit and Distributive Justice

true. Rather, I believe, the effort one puts into striving to better themselves should be sited as the
reward for their success.
The similarities between Hayek and Rawls perspective was that they felt everyones
biological make up sets in motion a unique set of elements that equip the person with the way in
which they will develop however there are several contributing factors external to the person that
also contribute to the development of the person (e.g. family background, inheritance, and
education).
I do agree with both perspectives because we (society as a whole) judge based upon
whether people have made use of the opportunities given to them and how much effort they have
made to achieve the best that they can to improve their lives and contribute to the collective
good. I believe, like most, people should not be rewarded more than he/she deserves for his pain
or effort. I think we are born with talents and gifts that are not solely because we had an
inclination to acquire those abilities rather; they are burgeoned by the environment in which one
lives.
Another key point made within the book (to which I agree with) is that just because
someone was born with natural endowments or superior character does not mean that they should
have greater advantages in life and that no one is entitled to anything beyond what they work for
in life.
Clearly, merit should not be given just because one is born into a particular family,
community, or geographic region. I do believe it is the effort one makes and the goals one strives
towards is worthy of merit. I do disagree with the point made within the book about people who
are born less fortunate are not entitled to share in the wealth of the rich. I strongly feel that there
should be distributive justice between both extremes (poor and rich).

Merit and Distributive Justice

If we collectively work towards bridging the gap, society as whole can be benefit. If the
child who was born into an impoverished home, as I mentioned in the beginning, had no help,
guidance, and financial assistance from someone who was in a better position would suffer and
would not be able to improve his life. I do believe however that people should not be forced to
pull up the less fortunate- there should be standard set for what more successful people ought to
be willing to give but not for what anyone can demand.
In the case of illegal immigrants in the United States- there are several opponents of
allowing illegal immigrants basic human rights just because they believe their jobs and other
resources are being taken from them and given to the illegal immigrants. What these people fail
to understand is that these illegal immigrants are in desperate need and do not have the bare
minimum in the own native countries, that is why they seek to improve their lives for themselves
and their families back in their homelands. How can one argue that what these immigrants are
doing is wrong? Yes, they should acquire legal paperwork but there are barriers that make it
difficult for them to easily obtain such documentation.
The counter argument one would state is that if someone is born with an appealing
aptitude/skill they should be given the necessary resources to cultivate them to near perfection
regardless of distributive justice.
Take for example Taylor Swift, whose father felt that his daughter had the makings of a
great singer therefore he bought five million copies of her debut album giving her the necessary
sales that are needed for songs to be played on radio stations all across the country.
Another example would be Jaden Smith son of William and Jada Pinkett Smith who
started in at least two blockbuster movies, The Pursuit of Happiness and the Karate Kid, his

Merit and Distributive Justice

father having both the belief that his son is a great actor and the means was able to star Jaden in
such high profile movies.
One can argue that by placing an unfair amount of resources was correct since the end
results was success for these two young artists. However, I would ask, couldnt anyone become a
star in their profession given the amount of resources these two had?
I do not understand how a majority of Congressmen/women and Senators are from either
wealthy families or highly successful business backgrounds, how is that most spring off from
parents that hold degrees of higher education finish collage at least, and why are there more Wall
Street Barons than people like Steve Jobs (a college drop-out).
The simple answer is the unfair allocation of resources, the higher up you are born along
the financial and social food chain the less you have to struggle for the basic necessities for
survival and therefore are left to pursue and develop other interests.

Michael J. Sandel, Justice A Reader (Page 79 2007)