posted on 2012-07-01, 00:00authored byJohn N. Hooker
This paper uses optimization theory to address a fundamental question of ethics:
how to divide resources justly among individuals, groups, or organizations. It formulates
utilitarian and Rawlsian criteria for distributive justice as optimization problems.
The formulations recognize that some recipients are more productive than others, so
that an inequitable distribution may create greater overall utility. Conditions are derived
under which a distribution of resources is utility maximizing, and under which it
achieves a lexicographic maximum, which we take as formulating the difference principle
of John Rawls. It is found that utility maximization requires at least as much
inequality as results from allotting resources in proportion to productivity, and typically
a good deal more. Rawlsian justice requires a greater degree of equality than
utilitarianism, particularly when the distribution of productivities across recipients has
a short upper tail, although it is insensitive to the lower tail. It also requires greater
equality when there are rapidly decreasing returns to investment in productivity, and
ironically, when people have a stronger interest in getting rich.