In order to deal with the issue of distributive justice adequately, you need to understand that what looks like a relationship just between certain people can actually involve and affect others.

In order to deal with the issue of distributive justice adequately, you need to understand that
what looks like a relationship just between certain people can actually involve and affect
others. Here is a scenario to illustrate this point:
Imagine that I am a wealthy person in a village where everybody else is quite poor. I have
lots of money, but I am already buying all I need to buy in the village–I cannot find
anything else to spend my money on.
So, I decide to give some of my money to others. To be “fair”, I randomly pick half the
village population and give each of these people a significant amount of money. (Why
would I just give to half of the village? Maybe because I believe that dividing what I have
between the whole population will not give anyone enough to make any real difference)
So far, all seems well. I have done a good deed. and it looks like I have not been unjust to
anyone or hurt anyone in the process.
Nevertheless, it turns out that I have indeed created distributive injustice and hurt some
people!
When half the village gets a significant increase in their wealth, they start buying things
they could not afford before (or they buy more often what they could only buy once in
a while). This means increased demand for some products. Since the village is small, and
there is no competition (there is only one baker, one butcher, one.., etc.), the increased
demand results in higher prices for the demanded items. And this in turn affects other
prices, the result is wholesale inflation, and this means now that half the village (the other
half who did not receive anything from me) cannot afford to buy some of the products they
could barely afford in the past.
My “good” deed actually made some people poorer!!
I do not intend this example to suggest that there is anything wrong with helping the poor, or
with welfare. There is a clear disanalogy between randomly picking a portion of the
population for subsidies (or subsidizing those in the top 5% of the wealth-distribution with a
targeted tax-break, for that matter), and subsidizing those in need. The example only tries
to show how purely “personal” looking decisions can affect distributive justice.
As an aside, the example also reminds us that “richness” and “poorness” are relative
concepts. Whether one is rich, or poor does not just depend on how much money (or other
valuables) one has in one’s pocket (or bank account etc) it also depends on what others
have. The above example shows how I can make you poorer just by putting more
money in other people’s pockets.
And of course, this has many implications about distributive justice in our society.
Feel free to discuss anything you find interesting in this scenario. hut if you really want me
to pose a question. here it is:
Did the would-be “philanthropist” do a morally good deed, or not? Either way. defend your
response.

Last Completed Projects