Which kind of justice asks how benefits and burdens such as goods, income, and opportunities should be allocated among the members of a society?
Choose an answer, then check it.
Philosophy & Ethics · Foundations
Justice
On this page 9 sections
In 30 seconds
Justice A family of concepts concerning how people, actions, laws, policies, and institutions should treat individuals fairly. Full entry → is a family of concepts about how people should be treated, not a single rule. Distributive justice The part of justice concerned with how benefits and burdens, such as goods, income, and opportunities, should be allocated among people. Full entry → asks who should get what share of goods, opportunities, and burdens. Retributive justice The part of justice concerned with what punishment wrongdoers deserve, typically punishment proportional to the seriousness of the wrong. Full entry → asks what punishment wrongdoers deserve. Procedural justice The fairness of the process by which an allocation or decision is made, considered apart from the fairness of the resulting outcome. Full entry → concerns the fairness of the process itself, and corrective and Restorative justice An approach to wrongdoing that focuses on repairing harm to victims, offenders, and communities, for example through restitution or reconciliation. Full entry → address repairing wrongs. Several influential theories—egalitarian, Rawlsian, desert-based, utilitarian, and libertarian—offer different answers, and describing them is not the same as endorsing them.
Why this matters
Disputes about who should receive scarce scholarships, what counts as fair punishment, or whether a process was fair are disputes about justice. These questions appear in civic life, law, policy, and everyday decisions, and people often talk past each other because they mean different things by the word. Knowing how philosophers distinguish distributive, retributive, procedural, and corrective or restorative justice makes disagreement more precise: the parties can see whether they are arguing about an allocation, a punishment, a process, or a remedy. Studying competing theories also builds the habit of describing views fairly before evaluating them—useful in academic work, professional deliberation, and any setting where people must justify how benefits and burdens are shared.
The college version
Justice is a family of concepts
Justice is used in ordinary talk as if it were one thing, but philosophical discussion treats it as a family of concepts applied to different targets: individual actions, laws, public policies, and whole social structures. The same word can express several different questions. Distributive justice asks how benefits and burdens—goods, income, opportunities, jobs—should be shared among people. Retributive justice asks what punishment wrongdoers deserve and what makes punishment proportional. Procedural justice asks whether the process by which a decision or allocation is made is fair, independently of how the resulting outcome looks. Corrective justice The remedial demand that a wrongdoer restore or compensate a victim for a wrongful loss, such as returning stolen property. Full entry → demands that a wrongful loss be repaired, for example by returning stolen property, and restorative justice names contemporary approaches that emphasize repairing harm to victims, offenders, and communities rather than punishment alone. Keeping these questions separate is the first skill of this topic: an argument that a punishment was unfair and an argument that a distribution was unfair are different arguments.
Distributive justice: who should get what
Distributive justice is the branch of the family that asks who should get what. It concerns the frameworks—laws, institutions, policies—whose effects distribute benefits and burdens across a society, and it also applies to smaller decisions such as how a club divides a limited fund. Distributive principles vary along several dimensions: what is being distributed (income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare), who the recipients are, and on what basis the distribution should be made. A classic example survives from Aristotle: if there are fewer flutes than people who want them, he suggested giving them to the best players—distribution according to excellence, a desert-like criterion. Modern discussions typically contrast criteria such as equality, Desert What a person merits on the basis of their actions, such as effort, contribution, or the costs they bear. Full entry →, and need, and no criterion is self-evidently the right one for every good. The question “who should get what, and why?” is the question distributive theories answer differently.
Five influential distributive theories
Philosophers have proposed many distributive principles, and five families dominate current discussion. Strict egalitarianism The distributive principle that every person should receive the same level of material goods and services. Full entry → holds that every person should receive the same level of material goods and services, commonly justified by the moral equality of persons. John Rawls's justice as fairness allows inequalities only under strict conditions: in particular, his Difference principle Rawls's rule that social and economic inequalities are permitted only if they make the least advantaged members of society better off than under strict equality. Full entry → permits social and economic inequalities only when they make the least advantaged members of society materially better off than they would be under strict equality. Desert-based views hold that people should get what they deserve through their actions; contemporary proposals typically ground desert in contribution, effort, or compensation, following the Lockean idea that people deserve the fruits of their own labor. Welfare-based principles, of which utilitarianism is the most famous variant, treat material goods as valuable only insofar as they increase welfare, so distributions are assessed by their effects on overall well-being. Robert Nozick's Entitlement theory Nozick's view that a distribution is just when everyone holds what they acquired through just acquisition and just transfer. Full entry → takes a different route: a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to their holdings through just acquisition and just transfer, so justice tracks the history of holdings rather than any overall pattern. These five families disagree about the unit of distribution and the justification for it, and each has influential defenders and critics.
Describing theories, weighing tensions
Presenting these theories side by side is not the same as choosing among them. A survey can state what a view claims, the reasons its defenders offer, and the objections its critics raise, while leaving judgment to the reader. The same discipline applies to the standard tensions the theories expose. Equality, desert, and need pull in different directions: an equal share ignores differences in contribution, a desert-based share can ignore differences in need, and a need-based share can ignore effort. Efficiency can also conflict with fairness: strictly equal bundles of goods can be inefficient because voluntary trades could make some people better off without harming anyone else, yet the resulting inequality may still trouble a defender of equality. Recognizing these tensions does not dissolve them. It clarifies what the disagreement is about, which is usually the first step toward a defensible judgment. No theory in this lesson is presented as the obvious winner.
Eli explains
The same idea, in plain words
Explain it like I’m 10
When people say something is unjust, they usually mean one of a few different things. They might mean good things were shared out wrongly, or that someone was punished more than they deserved, or that the rules of the game were rigged, or that a wrong was never fixed. Philosophers call these distributive, retributive, procedural, and corrective or restorative justice. The word “justice” covers all of them. Different theories answer the sharing question differently: equally, according to need, according to desert, to maximize overall well-being, or according to how things were acquired. No theory wins by default; each has arguments and limits.
Picture it like this
Think of a family sharing a weekend cabin. Distributive justice is the question of who sleeps in which room. Procedural justice is whether the family agreed on a fair way to decide—say, a draw or oldest-chooses. Retributive justice is what happens when someone breaks the rules. And corrective or restorative justice is how the family makes things right again, like repairing a window someone broke.
Where the picture stops working
Families often settle these questions by habit, mood, or affection, and everyone can still feel treated fairly enough. Theories of justice, by contrast, demand explicit reasons and can pull in different directions: a fair procedure can produce an outcome that feels unequal, and repairing a harm does not settle who should have had the room in the first place.
Worked example
A neighborhood association receives a one-time grant and must decide how to use it. A strict egalitarian proposes splitting the money equally among all households. A member who favors desert argues that the volunteers who maintain the community garden contributed most and deserve a larger share. A utilitarian-minded member suggests spending everything on repairs that benefit everyone, because that raises overall well-being. A Nozick-style view asks instead whether the money was fairly acquired in the first place, so that its later use can follow voluntary decisions. The group is not choosing between “just” and “unjust” answers so much as between competing criteria of justice—and naming which criterion each proposal uses is the first step toward a reasoned decision.
Key takeaway
Justice is a family of concepts—distributive, retributive, procedural, and corrective or restorative—and the major theories offer competing criteria for applying them. Describing those views fairly is different from endorsing one.
Quick check
3 questions here, of 5 in this lesson’s practice set. Answers stay hidden until you check.
According to Rawls's difference principle, when are social and economic inequalities permitted?
Choose an answer, then check it.
A garden committee has extra seeds, and one member argues that the people who planted and watered the garden all season deserve a larger share of the harvest. Which approach to distributive justice does this argument most closely resemble?
Choose an answer, then check it.
Study tools & related lessonsYou’ll learn to · Common mistakes · Easily confused · Key vocabulary · Related
You’ll learn to
- Define justice as a family of related concepts applied to actions, laws, policies, and social structures.
- Distinguish distributive, retributive, procedural, and corrective or restorative justice.
- Explain strict egalitarianism, Rawls's justice as fairness and difference principle, Nozick's entitlement theory, utilitarian welfare-based views, and desert-based views.
- Identify the difference between describing a theory and endorsing it.
- Analyze a hypothetical allocation using several distributive criteria without assuming one theory is correct.
- Explain standard tensions such as equality versus desert versus need, and efficiency versus fairness.
Common mistakes
Treating justice as only a matter of courts and punishment.
Justice also includes how goods, opportunities, and burdens are distributed; the courtroom is just one of its settings.
Assuming one theory, such as egalitarianism, is the obviously correct view.
The major theories are influential positions with arguments and limits; this lesson describes them without picking a winner.
Confusing procedural fairness with outcome fairness.
A fair procedure can still produce an outcome some members consider unequal; procedural and substantive justice are separate questions.
Equating retributive justice with vengeance or harshness.
Retributive justice is about proportionate punishment and rules out punishing the innocent; it is distinct from vengeance.
Easily confused
Distributive justice vs. Corrective justice
Asks how benefits and burdens should be shared among many people versus demands that a wrongdoer repair a wrongful loss to a particular victim.
Procedural justice vs. Substantive justice
Concerns the fairness of the process by which a decision is made versus the justice of the final allocation itself.
Retributive justice vs. Restorative justice
Focuses on giving wrongdoers the proportionate punishment they deserve versus repairing harm to victims, offenders, and the community.
Key vocabulary
- Justice
- A family of concepts concerning how people, actions, laws, policies, and institutions should treat individuals fairly.
- Distributive justice
- The part of justice concerned with how benefits and burdens, such as goods, income, and opportunities, should be allocated among people.
- Retributive justice
- The part of justice concerned with what punishment wrongdoers deserve, typically punishment proportional to the seriousness of the wrong.
- Procedural justice
- The fairness of the process by which an allocation or decision is made, considered apart from the fairness of the resulting outcome.
- Corrective justice
- The remedial demand that a wrongdoer restore or compensate a victim for a wrongful loss, such as returning stolen property.
- Restorative justice
- An approach to wrongdoing that focuses on repairing harm to victims, offenders, and communities, for example through restitution or reconciliation.
- Strict egalitarianism
- The distributive principle that every person should receive the same level of material goods and services.
- Difference principle
- Rawls's rule that social and economic inequalities are permitted only if they make the least advantaged members of society better off than under strict equality.
- Entitlement theory
- Nozick's view that a distribution is just when everyone holds what they acquired through just acquisition and just transfer.
- Desert
- What a person merits on the basis of their actions, such as effort, contribution, or the costs they bear.
Sources & references
- Justice — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Distributive Justice — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Retributive Justice — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Restorative Justice — Encyclopaedia Britannica
EliExplains lessons are original prose written from the open, credible references above. See Copyright & Licensing.
Researched 2026-08-21
Educational content only. It is not medical, legal or professional advice. Found an error? Tell us.