Justice is an ethical framework that is based on Kantian principles (Deontology) which maintains that you should never commit a wrong act, even if the consequence is good. The means do not justify the ends unless every “mean” along the way is ethical. Justice holds that you should act fairly and treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.
Distributive Justice is a theory that stresses on equitable distribution of resources, goods and services within a community. It argues that allocating resources in a fair and equitable manner increases the chances of an ISL project succeeding in the long term. Hence distributive justice takes into account the total amount of goods or resources to be handed out, and the number of people within a community to ensure fair patterns of distribution. It is also a theory based on Kantian principles, which state that the means do not justify the ends, unless the means themselves are also ethical and not harmful. Hence, simply having a beneficial end result does not justify the unethical or harmful measures used to obtain it. Distributive justice, therefore, is a theory that emphasizes the fair allocation of all resources and services, as well as a just process by which the goods or services are disbursed.
Relevance to ISL:
Justice would support, above all other goals, the equal distribution of all resources for those who are similarly situated in a community. It would be argued that when resources are allocated fairly in the community, projects are most likely to succeed in the long-term.
Example: You are running an ISL project and want to hire staff in an equitable manner. You may be tempted to hire only women, but to be fair you hire equitably and treat all applicants similarly.
Justice would support equal distribution of all resources to those who are similarly situated, even if this is not the norm in the community. It would be argued that when resources are allocated fairly, projects are more likely to succeed in the long-term (even if this practice of equal distribution is not culturally unacceptable).
Example: Even if women in an Islamic country want to be treated by only women doctors, allocating resources equally would require hiring both men and women, which may result in equitable access for the community.
Justice would support equal distribution of all resources to those who are similarly situated in the context of partnerships. It would be argued that when resources are allocated fairly, partnerships may not be perfectly balanced. Groups engaging in partnerships are not always similarly situated and different resources may be more appropriate to allocate given circumstances.
Example: Go Global is engaged with community partners in many resource-poor, under-resourced settings. While distribution within the partnering community must be fair, more funding may be spent in Uganda as opposed to in Canada.
Justice would support equal distribution of all resources to those who are similarly situated regardless of an individual’s motivation for engaging abroad. It would be argued that resources should be allocated in a way that is socially just, without any additional motivations that would result in preferential treatment for particular groups who are similarly situated.
Example: If a project is being funded by a company, then volunteers may be pressured to distribute goods or services based on the company’s preferences and not equitably.
Justice would support the equal distribution of all resources to those who are similarly situated only if they are trained to distribute the particular resource. It would be argued that only individuals who are properly trained can allocate resources without bias in a way that’s socially just.
Example: Only a trained doctor will be able to distribute his/her medical services equitably, as s/he will be able to diagnose all the patients in an equally professional manner.
