Walzer: Spheres of justice (in: Complex Equality)
konspekt, Oct 2, 2003 AD
„Tyranny is the wish to obtain by one means what can only be had by another. We owe different duties to different qualities ...“
- Pascal, Pansée

- Walzer deals with distributive justice for we come together to share, exchange, and divide (even power, love).
- „this multiplicity of goods is matched by a multiplicity of distributive procedures, agents, and criteria“ [page 3]; the distributive multiplicity is inevitable (multiplicity = there are distinct kinds of goods)
- there's no univ. medium of exchange (there're some things money can't buy), no single decision point controlling all distributions, and no single criterion for all distributions – and unity is not possible, only pluralism works [4]
- opposes to Rawls and his rational-choice original situation (that prohibits particularism of interest) because of „particularism of history, culture, and membership“ [5] (=> diff. soc. meanings), for these can't be neglected
- he argues „that the principles of justice are themselves pluralistic in form; that different social goods ought to be distributed for different reasons, in accordance with different procedures, by different agents; and that all these differences derive from different understanding of the social goods themselves – the inevitable product of historical and cultural particularism“ [6]
A Theory of Goods (=> explain&limit the pluralism of distributive justice)
- „goods, with their meanings – because of their meanings – are the cruical medium of social relations“ [7] (=> Soc. construction of a goods implies how to distribute it.)
- distribution is preceded by conception and creation of goods (<=> their social meanings)
- Good's value is determined by the society: „A solitary person could hardly understand the meaning of the goods or figure out the reasons for taking them as likable or dislikable.“[7/8] [1 particular good, not an abstract one like a food?]
The Theory: 
1) All goods of concern for distrib. justice are social goods; „Goods in the world have shared meanings because conception and creation are social processes“ [7] => diff. meanings in diff. societies; i.e. value is a social product 
2) one's identity is based on the way she conceives and creates, and then possesses and employs social goods => person can't exist and be thought without (soc.) goods.
3) „There is no single set of primary or basic goods conceivable across all moral and material worlds“ [8] or it's so abstract that it has no use for practical distribution. (Wide set, diff. ratings – thanks to diff. meanings.) [„Food“ is perhaps too abstract, „bread“ is OK?]
4) The meaning of goods determines their movement, justice and all (Not goods in itself.) „Soc. meaning“ includes connected set of beliefs (how it should (not) be used etc.).
5) Soc. meanings are historical in character => change over time (and space), so do distrib. (some more, some less).
6) „When meanings are distinct, distributions must be autonomous.“[10] – the set of goods constitutes a distributive sphere within which only certain criteria and arrangements are appropriate. (In the sphere of ecclesiastical office money is not appropriate x bribes.) One sphere can invade another (business to politics ...). Meanings are not entirely distinct =>  events in 1 sphere affects others => relative autonomy only can be achieved at best.
Dominance and Monopoly
„Gold standard“: one (set of) good(s) is dominant and determinative of value in all the spheres. (In most societies.) Dominant good = it's owners may command a wide range of other goods (land wealth, capital, office ...). Monopolized = one (group of) person(s) hold the good against all rivals (they control it to exploit its dominance). Neither dominance nor monopoly is 100% => rule of the dominant class/good is unstable => soc. conflicts.
„The claim to monopolize a dominant good ... constitutes an ideology.“[12] Different groups with diff. distrib. criteria (+ underlaying philosoph. principle) strike for dominancy, each of them 100% valid only in a certain sphere. 
Most common counterclaims: 1) Monopoly is unjust = the domin. good should be redistributed to be equally or more widely shared. 2) Dominance is unjust = more autonomous distrib. required. 3) Both are unjust = new good monopolized by new group should replace the present (Marx's view). (Note: there's no naturally dominant good.)
Simple Equality (everybody the same ammount of the dominant good) [Rawls]
- monopoly will reappear because free exchange will bring inequalities [14]
- dominance will disappear and other goods (talent ...) come into play => new inequalities.
- Rawls's diff. principle of justice: inequalities are justified only if they bring the greatest possible benefits to the least advantaged soc. class. => constraints on the emerging monopoly of the talented (meritocracy)
- simple equality requires strong state to enforce the equality and constraints (< Rawls) => state power becomes dominant good. (Kdo hlídá hlídače?)
- breaking the monopoly of a good neutralizes its dominance – true for political power in democracy => democracy reflects the prevailing distrib. of social goods (money ...) - Marx.
Tyranny and Complex Equality (limit the dominance, i.e. ensure autonomy)
- instead of limiting the monopoly we should ensure greater autonomy for the spheres, i.e. decrease dominancy of the dom. good (decrease its convertibility into other goods).
- complex egalitarion society: many local monopolies => limited convertibility => there are small inequalities but they aren't multiplied and summed through conversions. May be not more stable than simple eq. but „it would open the way for more diffused and particularized forms of social conflict.“ [17] Large-scale state actions not required.
- in simple eq. no goods would be dominant for long; „Equality is a complex relation of persons, mediated by the goods we make, share, and divide among ourselves; it is not an identity of possessions.“ [18] (= not „I've 14 hats, you've 14 hats.) => it requires a diversity of distributive criteria that mirrors the diversity of soc. goods.
- inequality emerges if sb. dominates multiple spheres (office => better edu., medical care ...); if she is better-off in one sphere only the equality is preserved.
- open-ended distributive principle: „No social good X should be distributed to men and women who possess some other good Y merely because they possess Y and without regard to the meaning of X.“[20]
Three Distributive Principles
Free exchange, desert, and need meet the requirements of the open-ended distr. pr. but each one is valid only in its particular sphere, none can rule all of them.
Free exchange
- Theory: All goods are convertible into all other through the neutral medium of money. [21] No dominant goods and no monopolies exist. Divisions (exchange) reflect soc. meanings of goods.
- Reality: Money is not neutral but becomes the dominant good possessed by those talented for bargaining and trading.
- some things shouldn't be for sale, e.g. political power (one's vote), for it would create tyranny (<Pascal)
Desert
- a single neutral agency distributes rewards and punishments w.r.t. individual desert.
- some goods can't be distributed on the basis of desert and/or by a central agency (love between 2 particular individuals, influence on a partic. person, ?works of art)
- „Desert seems to require an especially close connection between particular goods and particular persons, whereas justice only sometimes requires a connection of that sort.“[24]
- the agency is not feasible: how to select its employees, how to „mesure“ desert?
Need
- need is not always an applicable criterion, e.g. people do not need the particular jobs they're best qualified for and we can't select an employee merely w.r.t. her needs (same for political power, honor, works of arts etc.)
- this distributive principle doesn't help when the needs are satisfied and there is still more to be distributed or when there is not enough to satisfy all equal needs.
Hierarchies and Caste Societies
- in some societies, social goods are conceived in hierarchical terms <=> dominance and monopoly are enactments of meaning (clothing as a sign of one's status/class ...)
- no goods is perceived only from the hierarchical point of view; they're always understood in their own terms (kingship requires certain grace and those without it can't rule no matter what the blood)
The Setting of the Argument
- „the political community is probably the closest we can come to a world of common meanings“[28] (shared language, history, culture); „in matters of morality, argument simply is the appeal to common meanings“[29] => the political community is the (place of) setting of the argument (for complex equality?)
- the community is itself a good that gets distributed (by taking people in).
****************************************************************
Critique of Walzer
Walzer theory seems to imply that a system of distribution is justified if it is in accordance with a social meaning of the distributed good but this is questionable (Daniels). 1) Within 1 society, there are different (though perhaps overlapping) meanings and shared soc. meaning is a kind of myth. 2) Soc. meanings must be open to revisions (as our beliefs and plans are). => a distributive justice must respect soc. meanings of goods – otherwise people wouldn't accept it – but this is not a sufficient ground for its justification.