Vlastos

Vlastos begins section II of his article with the following: “Let me begin with the first on my list of maxims of distributive justice: ‘To each according to his need.’ Since needs are often unequal, this looks like a precept of unequal distribution. But this is wrong. It is in fact the most perfect form of equal distribution” (49). After reading the summary on the syllabus, I knew that such a point was the thesis of his essay, but I was really wondering how he would prove it because the thesis seemed almost nonsensical to me. I had always thought that human rights, given to all humans by nature of their humanness, required absolutely equal treatment. But, as I started thinking about equality (and read his New York police example), I started to realize that there are two different conceptions of equality at work. First, one can consider equality as the equal distribution of resources (the police officers’ time in Vlastos’s example). Second, one can conceptualize equality as the intended result of the action (working to give all citizens an equal right to security). So I think Vlastos is saying that inequality (in the first sense) is justified to preserve equality (in the second sense). Particularly, he writes (regarding the perceptions of the Martian visitor): “for then he would have seen at once that unequal distribution of resources would be required to equalize benefits in cases of unequal need” (51). Is this what he is saying to justify inequality, or am I so caught up on one particular example that I’m missing the bigger picture?