Distributive Justice in a Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer

Distribution Justice needs to reflect the greatest theorist's philosophical power. In order to solve some social problems, we need to carefully compose the most practical solution to solve the biggest loophole. Michael Walzer is not surprised by the complexity of social inequality. In his book 'Defense of pluralism and equality', these benefits should be distributed according to their meaning, as he believes that every society determines the value of social benefits. Social products (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are each divided into fields that have their own distribution theory.

The work of Michael Wolzer published in the mid-1980s "Scope of justice: Defense of diversity and equality" mainly proposes Communism theory in response to various contemporary world problems including immigration and justice distribution doing. In "Membership" of Chapter 2, Walzer noted that the nation state has the right to self-determination and the exclusion of sovereign. With this exclusion, the country's heritage is reliably preserved and the risk of a country's identity decline is reduced. As Walzer wrote,

Michael Walser's theory (1983) aims to achieve what he calls "complex equality", presenting a link between equality and pluralism. Walzer believes that the relevant reasons can only explain the assignment of a particular type of product in a particular field and can not be explained in some or all fields. It is necessary to oppose a simple equality theory that promotes equitable distribution of key commodities and therefore underestimate the complexity of work standards in each specific field and end the advantage of a particular commodity. For example, in the political field, it is necessary to prevent the purchase of power through economic (ie currency) derivatives. In fact, the designation of this theory is misleading, as Walzer's theory of complex equality is not intended to be equal, but rather a separation in the judicial field. However, any equality theory should follow Walzer's advice rather than one-sidedism, but recognizes the complexity of life and the criteria of pluralist justice.

8 Modernity should be judged differently in different "judicial areas" (recently), and recently Michael Walser has correctly requested (field of justice: Defense of pluralism and equality in New York, basic Writing, 1983). For different practice areas and their interrelations, it is also necessary to analyze discriminatory terms before conceptualization rather than normative. This is a suggestion that I would like to do. 2 As a standard description, you can refer to the social and political aspects of "modernization" edited by Daniel Lerner and James S. Coleman in the encyclopedia of international social science. Author: David L. Sills, London, New York, Macmillan and Freedom of Publication, 1968, p. 386 - Page 402.