Global distributive justice characterizes striking disparity between Universalists and particularists. Beitz advocates for justice redistribution on the basis of egalitarian moral premise while Richard Miller advocates for distribution to a domestic community. Beitz argues that, the principles of justice that govern the distribution of the economic burden and benefits should be universal, and ignore national boundaries. Beitz theory insists on morality whose basic principles advocates for equal regard or respect for all individuals in the world, with no laid down basic duty towards a group with a special relation to an agent.
Richard miller argues on the basis of particularism. He says that the first consideration should go to the needy compatriots over the foreigners when considering tax based support. He argues that the institutions in a nation are imposed by the members of that state; therefore, in order to live a life based on respect and trust, the government should first provide incentives and subsidies to the compatriots before considering the foreigners.
Miller’s position is untenable, because there is no moral justification for the state system, then, it cannot ignore the possibility of duties to foreigners that are morally similar with those of compatriots when it comes to tax aid. Because the system is not justified, he does not show how morally relevant is the states' existence to considerations at hand. On the other hand, Beitz’s approach fails to acknowledge the moral relevance of features of relationship between fellow countrymen. Although there is a need to alleviate poverty globally, inequality between borders cannot be easily diminished.
The scopes of universality and particularism can be achieved together if at all their opposition is put into consideration. Also the presence of multiple contexts of justice is realized within the global democratic system, where redistribution is an issue of concern at the global, and domestic level.
|Massachusetts Health Reform Act||Right to Counsel|