• What goods and burdens are to be

• What goods and burdens are to be justly distributed (or should be distributed)? Which social goods comprise the object of distributive justice?
• What are the spheres (of justice) into which these resources have to be grouped?
• Who are the recipients of distribution? Who has a prima facie claim to a fair share?
• What are the commonly cited yet in reality unjustified exceptions to equal distribution?
• Which inequalities are justified?
• Which approach, conception or theory of egalitarian distributive justice is therefore the best?
What goods and burdens are to be justly distributed (or should be distributed)? There are various opinions as to which social goods comprise the object of distributive justice. Does distributive justice apply only to those goods commonly produced, i.e., through social and economic fair cooperation, or to other goods as well, e.g. natural resources, that are not the result of common cooperation? (At present, the former approach is most apparent in Rawls (1971) and many of his adherents and critics follow Rawls in this respect.)
In the domain of public political distribution, the goods and burdens to be distributed may be divided into various categories. Such a division is essential because reasons that speak for unequal treatment in one area do not justify unequal treatment in another. What are the spheres (of justice) into which these resources have to be grouped? In order to reconstruct our understanding of contemporary liberal, democratic welfare states, four categories seem essential: 1. civil liberties, 2. opportunities for political participation, 3. social positions and opportunities, 4. economic rewards. Despite views to the contrary, liberties and opportunities are seen in this view as objects of distribution. For all four categories, the presumption of equality is the guiding principle. The results of applying the presumption to each category can then be codified as rights.
After dividing social goods into categories, we must next ask what can justify unequal treatment or unequal distribution in each category. Today the following postulates of equality are generally considered morally required.
Strict equality is called for in the legal sphere of civil freedoms, since — putting aside limitation on freedom as punishment — there is no justification for any exceptions. As follows from the principle of formal equality, all citizens of a society must have equal general rights and duties. These rights and duties have to be grounded in general laws applying to everyone. This is the postulate of legal equality. In addition, the postulate of equal freedom is equally valid: every person should have the same freedom to structure his or her life, and this in the most far-reaching manner possible in a peaceful and appropriate social order.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

• What goods and burdens are to be justly distributed (or should be distributed)? Which social goods comprise the object of distributive justice?• What are the spheres (of justice) into which these resources have to be grouped?• Who are the recipients of distribution? Who has a prima facie claim to a fair share?• What are the commonly cited yet in reality unjustified exceptions to equal distribution?• Which inequalities are justified?• Which approach, conception or theory of egalitarian distributive justice is therefore the best?What goods and burdens are to be justly distributed (or should be distributed)? There are various opinions as to which social goods comprise the object of distributive justice. Does distributive justice apply only to those goods commonly produced, i.e., through social and economic fair cooperation, or to other goods as well, e.g. natural resources, that are not the result of common cooperation? (At present, the former approach is most apparent in Rawls (1971) and many of his adherents and critics follow Rawls in this respect.) Dalam domain distribusi publik politik, barang-barang dan beban untuk didistribusikan dapat dibagi ke dalam berbagai kategori. Sebuah divisi penting karena alasan-alasan yang berbicara untuk timpangnya perlakuan dalam satu area tidak membenarkan timpangnya perlakuan lain. Apakah bidang (keadilan) di mana sumber daya ini harus dapat dikelompokkan? Untuk merekonstruksi pemahaman kita tentang kontemporer liberal, Partai Demokrat negara kesejahteraan, empat kategori tampak penting: 1. kebebasan sipil, 2. kesempatan untuk partisipasi politik, 3. posisi sosial dan kesempatan, 4. penghargaan ekonomi. Meskipun pandangan yang bertentangan, kebebasan dan kesempatan terlihat dalam pandangan ini sebagai objek distribusi. Semua empat kategori, praduga kesetaraan adalah prinsip. Hasil menerapkan praduga ke setiap kategori dapat kemudian dikodifikasikan sebagai hak.Setelah membagi barang-barang sosial ke dalam kategori, kita harus selanjutnya bertanya apa dapat membenarkan timpangnya perlakuan atau distribusi yang tidak seimbang dalam setiap kategori. Hari ini dengan dalil-dalil berikut kesetaraan umumnya dianggap secara moral diperlukan.Ketat kesetaraan disebut untuk dalam lingkup hukum kebebasan sipil, sejak — mengesampingkan pembatasan pada kebebasan sebagai hukuman — ada ada pembenaran untuk pengecualian. Sebagai berikut dari prinsip kesetaraan formal, semua warga masyarakat harus memiliki hak- hak umum yang sama. Hak dan kewajiban ini harus didasarkan pada umumnya undang-undang yang berlaku untuk semua orang. Ini adalah dalil hukum kesetaraan. Selain itu, dalil kebebasan yang sama sama berlaku: setiap orang harus memiliki kebebasan yang sama kepada struktur hidupnya, dan ini dengan cara yang paling jauh jangkauannya yang mungkin dalam tatanan sosial yang damai dan tepat.