She was born in Mexico City, and as a girl she attended the Instituto Asunción de México. In 1972, she earned her bachelor's degree in philosophy from the Universidad Iberoamericana, with a thesis entitled "El Concepto de la Muerte en Jean-Paul Sartre" ("The Concept of Death in Jean-Paul Sartre"). In 1981, she earned her master's degree from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), with a thesis entitled "Sobre los Derechos Humanos" ("On Human Rights"). From 1981-1983, she did postgraduate studies at University College London, and in 1992 she earned her doctoral degree in philosophy from UNAM, with a thesis entitled "El Materialismo Histórico Como Explicación Funcional" ("Historical Materialism as Functional Explanation").
From 1972-1985, she was a professor at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), and from 1986 onward she was a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas - UNAM, where she served as director from 2000-2004. She was also a professor in the Faculty of Arts and Letters at UNAM.
From 2010-2012, she served as President of the Mexican Philosophical Association. She was also a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, the Ibero-American Society of Economic Analysis, and the National Human Rights Commission.
She was the author of four books, as well as many articles and book chapters. Her books included Sobre Los Derechos Humanos (1985), Marxismo Analitico: Explicaciones Funcionales e Intenciones (1995), Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (1995), and La Pobreza: Un Estudio Filosófico (2000, which was translated into English with the title, Poverty: A Philosophical Approach, 2005).
In Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (Essays on Distributive Justice), she explains that when discussing distributive justice, we must consider at least three criteria: (1) the characteristics of the subjects who are to receive the distributed goods (including the comparative needs and abilities of those subjects), (2) the nature of the distributed goods, and (3) the principles that will govern the allocation of those goods to subjects.
Many philosophical disciplines may enable us to better understand the nature of distributive justice, including ethics, political philosophy, the philosophy of economics, and the philosophy of law.
Dieterlen makes a detailed and critical examination of Robert Nozick's theory of the minimal state as it relates to distributive justice. Nozick argues that only a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, protection against theft, protection against fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc. is justified, and that any state more extensive than a minimal state is a violation of individuals' rights.1 The minimal state, if it is to be just, cannot deprive individuals of property to which they are entitled or redistribute that property to others, even if that redistribution is for the sake of promoting equality.
According to Nozick's entitlement theory of justice, individuals are entitled to any property they have justly acquired, and individuals who have justly acquired property from those who are entitled to transfer it to them are entitled to own that property. No one has any entitlement to own property that doesn't belong to them. This means that any attempt to promote social equality by depriving wealthy individuals of some of their property in order to provide it to less wealthy individuals is unjust. Any redistribution of goods that deprives some individuals of property to which they are entitled is unjust, even if that redistribution is for the sake of providing equality of opportunity for others.
Among the criticisms that Dieterlen makes of Nozick's theory are the following:
She was the author of four books, as well as many articles and book chapters. Her books included Sobre Los Derechos Humanos (1985), Marxismo Analitico: Explicaciones Funcionales e Intenciones (1995), Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (1995), and La Pobreza: Un Estudio Filosófico (2000, which was translated into English with the title, Poverty: A Philosophical Approach, 2005).
In Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (Essays on Distributive Justice), she explains that when discussing distributive justice, we must consider at least three criteria: (1) the characteristics of the subjects who are to receive the distributed goods (including the comparative needs and abilities of those subjects), (2) the nature of the distributed goods, and (3) the principles that will govern the allocation of those goods to subjects.
Many philosophical disciplines may enable us to better understand the nature of distributive justice, including ethics, political philosophy, the philosophy of economics, and the philosophy of law.
Dieterlen makes a detailed and critical examination of Robert Nozick's theory of the minimal state as it relates to distributive justice. Nozick argues that only a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, protection against theft, protection against fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc. is justified, and that any state more extensive than a minimal state is a violation of individuals' rights.1 The minimal state, if it is to be just, cannot deprive individuals of property to which they are entitled or redistribute that property to others, even if that redistribution is for the sake of promoting equality.
According to Nozick's entitlement theory of justice, individuals are entitled to any property they have justly acquired, and individuals who have justly acquired property from those who are entitled to transfer it to them are entitled to own that property. No one has any entitlement to own property that doesn't belong to them. This means that any attempt to promote social equality by depriving wealthy individuals of some of their property in order to provide it to less wealthy individuals is unjust. Any redistribution of goods that deprives some individuals of property to which they are entitled is unjust, even if that redistribution is for the sake of providing equality of opportunity for others.
Among the criticisms that Dieterlen makes of Nozick's theory are the following:
Dieterlen contrasts Nozick's theory of distributive justice with that of Rawls, who describes two principles of justice that would be agreed to by rational and mutually disinterested individuals in an "original position" of equality:"Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a book with many arguments, some weak, others strong. Among the weak ones is the one that leads to the conclusion that the only legitimate state is the minimal one, based on the rights of individuals. To demonstrate the difficulties of this reasoning, we need a theory of rights, their hierarchy, and their limits. It is counterintuitive to think that the state violates people's rights if it prevents them from accessing certain books [for example], but does not violate any rights if it allows individuals to be unable to read. The neoliberal thesis asserts that literacy is not a function of the state and that there will always be charitable, voluntary, and private institutions dedicated to teaching those who are illiterate, but that this is not a function of the state. The latter, neoliberals believe, has only produced inefficient and very costly educational institutions for society. A theory of distributive justice like Rawls's explains why this neoliberal argument doesn't work. It is impossible to believe that people's rights are respected when situations of misery are tolerated.Another weak argument is that of distributive justice. It is impossible to apply the principle of rectification of injustices committed in the past because it is often impossible to determine when the last fair transaction took place."2
(1) each individual should have an equal right to as much liberty as is compatible with the rights of other individuals, and
2) any social or economic inequalities that occur between individuals should (a) be designed to benefit every individual and (b) belong to positions that are equally available to all individuals.
According to Rawls, the ordering of the two principles of justice means that the first principle has priority over the second. Thus, basic rights have priority over economic and social advantages, and violations of basic rights can't be justified by the production of economic or social advantages.4 Furthermore, the priority of the difference principle over the principle of fair equality of opportunity (in the second principle of justice) indicates that any inequalities of opportunity are permissible only if they are designed to benefit all individuals. The basic conception of justice underlying both the first and second principle is that all social values, such as liberty, opportunity, income, and wealth, should be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution benefits all individuals.5
Dieterlen notes that Rawls is critical of utilitarianism, because it claims that the gains in social goods obtained by some individuals can compensate for the losses suffered by other individuals if there is a net benefit for society as a whole. If a majority of individuals are therefore already in a position of advantage as compared to a minority, then the majority may gain even greater advantage while the minority may suffer even greater disadvantage if a redistribution of social goods results in a net benefit for the majority.
Dieterlen also notes that Rawls is critical of intuitionism, because it offers no constructive criterion that can decide in favor of one or more competing principles of justice. Although moral complexity may call for a number of distinct principles to be recognized, intuitionism offers no explicit method or priority rules for weighing one principle against another.
She also notes that Amartya Sen (2009) is sceptical of the assumption by Rawls that his two principles of justice are the most likely ones that would be chosen in the "original position." Sen explains that there are genuinely plural and sometimes conflicting concerns that may bear on our understanding of justice.6 He is also sceptical of the rationale for liberty being given such an extreme degree of priority over other social goods. He asks, "Why should we regard hunger, starvation, and medical neglect to be invariably less important than the violation of any kind of personal liberty?"7 He explains that the difference principle may fail to take into account the variations that may occur in the abilities of individuals to convert primary goods into the human capabilities that will enable them to attain a more satisfactory level of well-being.
Sen also notes the difficulty of adapting Rawls's use of the social contract to an international context and thereby developing an interpretation of global justice.
Dieterlen explains that
However, the concept of a welfare state has been criticized from both the left and the right.
Dieterlen also notes that Rawls is critical of intuitionism, because it offers no constructive criterion that can decide in favor of one or more competing principles of justice. Although moral complexity may call for a number of distinct principles to be recognized, intuitionism offers no explicit method or priority rules for weighing one principle against another.
She also notes that Amartya Sen (2009) is sceptical of the assumption by Rawls that his two principles of justice are the most likely ones that would be chosen in the "original position." Sen explains that there are genuinely plural and sometimes conflicting concerns that may bear on our understanding of justice.6 He is also sceptical of the rationale for liberty being given such an extreme degree of priority over other social goods. He asks, "Why should we regard hunger, starvation, and medical neglect to be invariably less important than the violation of any kind of personal liberty?"7 He explains that the difference principle may fail to take into account the variations that may occur in the abilities of individuals to convert primary goods into the human capabilities that will enable them to attain a more satisfactory level of well-being.
Sen also notes the difficulty of adapting Rawls's use of the social contract to an international context and thereby developing an interpretation of global justice.
Dieterlen explains that
"Sen criticizes the idea of primary goods because he finds two problems with it. The first is that it homogenizes the people who receive primary goods, since they have different needs due to their age, health, climatic conditions, geographic location, and temperament. These differences must be taken into account when studying distribution schemes, especially in poor countries. For example, the use of primary goods decreases significantly among people who suffer from malnutrition. Thus, judging levels of advantage exclusively based on primary goods leads to a partially blind morality, since it ignores differences that may be morally relevant. The second problem Sen observes is that primary goods only have contingent instrumental value; to consider them as ends would be to treat them as fetishes, as if they had intrinsic value.According to Dieterlen, the kind of state Rawls defends is a welfare state that, by reallocating resources, provides greater equality of opportunity.9 The question then becomes, what kinds of interventions by a welfare state are justified? She argues that a welfare state may be capable of reconciling the guarantee of basic freedoms with a redistribution of social goods that reduces social and economic inequalities. The state is in fact obligated to perform both of these functions, because of the needs and vulnerabilities of citizens in a market society.
According to Sen, what we should distribute are the capabilities that refer to the fact that human beings possess a large number of potentialities that adverse situations prevent us from developing; for this reason, any principle of distribution must focus on improving the circumstances that allow us to develop these capabilities. This notion is related to the ideas of equality, freedom, well-being, and agency."8
However, the concept of a welfare state has been criticized from both the left and the right.
Criticism from the left has included the argument that the welfare state is inefficient and repressive, and that it promotes a false perception of social and political reality in the working class. Instead of seeking to transform capitalist society, the welfare state maintains it.10
Criticism from the right has included the argument that the welfare state, by redistributing goods in favor of less favored groups, imposes tax burdens on many individuals and regulates capital, which reduces the incentive to invest. Another argument has been that the welfare state, by protecting certain sectors or classes of workers and granting certain entitlements, reduces the incentive to work or to work as productively as would be the case under the unfettered reign of market forces.11
The concept of the welfare state also confronts two problems when applied to nations with emerging or developing economies. First, in some of these nations, the production of goods and the collection of taxes may not be sufficient to support redistribution, and instead there may be excessive spending by the state, leading to extremely burdensome levels of internal and external debt. Second, in some of these nations there may be great cultural diversity, which must be taken into account when development policies are employed.12
Dieterlen compares individualist with communitarian theories of distributive justice, and she argues that an error of individualist theories, even egalitarian ones, is that they maintain there is only one criterion of distribution (such as equity, proportionality, merit or desert, need, etc.). Communitarian theories, on the other hand, defend a plurality of distribution patterns. Thus, a criterion of need may take priority at a given moment over a criterion of desert.
She also says that the main principle underlying the problem of distributive justice in Western societies is that of social equality, which can be promoted by leveling out wage and income differences and implementing policies that minimize differences in opportunity. Egalitarian principles promote the conditions that make democracy possible, since they allow a greater number of people to fully participate and be represented in the political process.13
The efficiency of an economic system in distributing social goods may be determined by its Pareto optimality. A distribution of goods is Pareto optimal if there is no way to make one individual better off without making another individual worse off. This situation may be achieved by a competitive market, since such a mechanism may enable us to know how much is produced and who has received the desired goods.14 The market may also enable us to compare the demand for a given good with the supply of that good, so that if efficiency in the distribution of goods is obtained, any shortage or waste of labor and goods can be avoided.
Dieterlen says that it is important for us to acknowledge that alleviating misery and poverty, providing health care and education, and giving special consideration to those who lack a minimum standard of living are priorities that deserve our attention. She agrees with Rawls that distribution of primary social goods should start with those who are most disadvantaged and should then continue with those who are less disadvantaged, until a situation of less inequality is obtained. Thus, the fulfillment of Pareto optimality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a just society. If the principles of justice conflict with those of efficiency, then justice should be given greater priority.15
She also agrees with Sen that when we approach a situation of inequality we should recognize that all citizens have the right to a basic level of functioning. We have a responsibility to ensure that resources are available so that every citizen has the opportunity to function, not only minimally, but as well as possible. Thus, when resources are limited, and it is not possible for individuals to achieve a basic level of functioning, the goal of achieving social equality commits us to giving more to those who have less.16 Dieterlen believes that the state can promote redistribution of resources through subsidies and financial incentives that will be attractive to owners of capital.17
FOOTNOTES
1Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 179.
2Paulette Dieterlen, Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (México, D. F.: Fontamara, 1996), p. 27.
3John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 107.
4Ibid., p. 54.
5Ibid., p. 54.
6Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), p. 57.
7Ibid., p. 65.
8Paulette Dieterlen, Justicia Distributiva y Pobreza, (Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2016), p. 6.
9Paulette Dieterlen, Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva, p. 55.
10Ibid., p. 70.
The concept of the welfare state also confronts two problems when applied to nations with emerging or developing economies. First, in some of these nations, the production of goods and the collection of taxes may not be sufficient to support redistribution, and instead there may be excessive spending by the state, leading to extremely burdensome levels of internal and external debt. Second, in some of these nations there may be great cultural diversity, which must be taken into account when development policies are employed.12
Dieterlen compares individualist with communitarian theories of distributive justice, and she argues that an error of individualist theories, even egalitarian ones, is that they maintain there is only one criterion of distribution (such as equity, proportionality, merit or desert, need, etc.). Communitarian theories, on the other hand, defend a plurality of distribution patterns. Thus, a criterion of need may take priority at a given moment over a criterion of desert.
She also says that the main principle underlying the problem of distributive justice in Western societies is that of social equality, which can be promoted by leveling out wage and income differences and implementing policies that minimize differences in opportunity. Egalitarian principles promote the conditions that make democracy possible, since they allow a greater number of people to fully participate and be represented in the political process.13
The efficiency of an economic system in distributing social goods may be determined by its Pareto optimality. A distribution of goods is Pareto optimal if there is no way to make one individual better off without making another individual worse off. This situation may be achieved by a competitive market, since such a mechanism may enable us to know how much is produced and who has received the desired goods.14 The market may also enable us to compare the demand for a given good with the supply of that good, so that if efficiency in the distribution of goods is obtained, any shortage or waste of labor and goods can be avoided.
Dieterlen says that it is important for us to acknowledge that alleviating misery and poverty, providing health care and education, and giving special consideration to those who lack a minimum standard of living are priorities that deserve our attention. She agrees with Rawls that distribution of primary social goods should start with those who are most disadvantaged and should then continue with those who are less disadvantaged, until a situation of less inequality is obtained. Thus, the fulfillment of Pareto optimality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a just society. If the principles of justice conflict with those of efficiency, then justice should be given greater priority.15
She also agrees with Sen that when we approach a situation of inequality we should recognize that all citizens have the right to a basic level of functioning. We have a responsibility to ensure that resources are available so that every citizen has the opportunity to function, not only minimally, but as well as possible. Thus, when resources are limited, and it is not possible for individuals to achieve a basic level of functioning, the goal of achieving social equality commits us to giving more to those who have less.16 Dieterlen believes that the state can promote redistribution of resources through subsidies and financial incentives that will be attractive to owners of capital.17
FOOTNOTES
1Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 179.
2Paulette Dieterlen, Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva (México, D. F.: Fontamara, 1996), p. 27.
3John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 107.
4Ibid., p. 54.
5Ibid., p. 54.
6Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), p. 57.
7Ibid., p. 65.
8Paulette Dieterlen, Justicia Distributiva y Pobreza, (Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2016), p. 6.
9Paulette Dieterlen, Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva, p. 55.
10Ibid., p. 70.
11 Ibid., p. 70.
12Ibid., p. 71.
13Ibid., p. 109.
14Ibid., p. 111.
15Ibid., p. 115.
16Ibid., p. 119
17Ibid., p. 119.
12Ibid., p. 71.
13Ibid., p. 109.
14Ibid., p. 111.
15Ibid., p. 115.
16Ibid., p. 119
17Ibid., p. 119.
NOTE: The quoted text from Dieterlen's Ensayos Sobre Justicia Distributiva and Justicia Distributiva y Pobreza was translated with the aid of Google Translate and then reviewed by myself for accuracy.