Distributive justice concerns how benefits and burdens should be allocated among members of society. Retributive justice concerns whether and how a person should be punished for wrongdoing, usually according to the seriousness of the offence and the person's responsibility.
The Key Distinction
Distributive justice asks: “Who should receive what?” It evaluates the allocation of goods such as income, opportunities, healthcare, education, rights, and taxation. Different philosophical theories defend different principles of distribution, including equality, need, merit, and entitlement.
For example, John Rawls argues that social and economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged and positions remain open under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. By contrast, Robert Nozick's entitlement theory judges a distribution by whether holdings were acquired and transferred justly, rather than by whether the resulting pattern is equal.
Retributive justice asks: “What punishment, if any, does the wrongdoer deserve?” A retributivist holds that punishment is justified because a responsible person has committed a wrongful act. The punishment should normally satisfy proportionality: more serious offences may deserve more severe punishments, but punishment must not exceed what is deserved.
| Aspect | Distributive justice | Retributive justice |
|---|---|---|
| Central concern | Allocation of benefits and burdens | Punishment for wrongdoing |
| Main question | Who should receive what, and why? | What does the offender deserve? |
| Key principles | Equality, need, merit, entitlement | Desert, responsibility, proportionality |
| Typical context | Wealth, healthcare, education, taxation | Criminal law and punishment |
A common misconception is that retributive justice means revenge. Revenge is personal and may be excessive, whereas retributive punishment is intended to be impartial, legally authorized, and proportionate. Retribution also differs from deterrence and rehabilitation, which justify punishment primarily through its future consequences.
Exam Technique
In an IB Philosophy response, define both concepts before comparing their aims and principles. Use a philosopher or theory as support, then evaluate a tension: for example, whether desert can justify unequal distributions or whether retributive punishment is morally preferable to consequentialist alternatives.
