Principles of Justice, care of Don Berkich:
We should treat similar cases in similar ways, possibly according to:
The Principle of Equality: Benefits and burdens should be equally distributed. [See Part V in this series]
The Principle of Need: Those with greater need should receive more benefits so as attain an eventual equilibrium.
Today we address The Principle of Need. Let the questions begin!
What does an “eventual equilibrium” mean? Does it apply to societal equilibrium, individual equilibrium, or what? Does it apply to equilibrium between benefits and burdens? What does that mean and what does it look like? In other words, examples would be helpful.
What is a benefit? Provide examples. Are there some benefits that count and others that don’t? That is, are there some benefits that should be equally distributed and others that don’t have to be? If so, provide examples. Why those benefits?
What is a burden? Provide examples. Are there some burdens that count and others that don’t? That is, are there some burdens that should be equally distributed and others that don’t have to be? If so, provide examples. Why those burdens?
What is a need? Provide examples. Are there some needs that count and others that don’t? That is, are there some needs that should be met and others that it’s ok if they’re not met? If so, provide examples. Why those needs?
What's the difference between a need and a want?
To what extent are needs fixed? To what extent are needs relative? Are some needs fixed and others relative?
Do needs grow? Do needs change in response to what other people have? At what point do we say enough is enough?
If needs are for scarce resources that cannot be distributed equally, is the answer just to prevent everyone from accessing those resources? Why? Why not?
As always, the devil’s in the details.