Distributive variations have dominated justice theory for decades

Evidence

Such an approach differs from more substantive and consequentialist theories of distributive justice—for example, a utilitarian conception that focuses more on the specific outcomes of the distributive process, or substantive notions that flow from a particular idea of what a good society should look like. Other distributive theories in the past three decades focus more specifically on what is to be distributed (goods, rights), and what the principles governing those proposed distributions should be (e.g. need, desert, or entitlement). Overall, the point is that such variations on the distributive approach to justice have been the dominant discourse in justice theory over the past few decades. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 57

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Distributive-only justice theory fails to address recognition and capability concerns — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 415; Political theorists have reduced justice almost exclusively to distribution — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 54; Rawlsian justice as fairness is fundamentally a theory of just distribution — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 56 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Justice theory must target institutionalized domination and oppression, not just distribution #complicates (0.75) — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 111
• Justice discourse spans millennia across philosophy, law, and theology #expands (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2326
• Shared fairness intuitions cannot explain distributive variability when beliefs and situations are held constant. #qualifies (0.70) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 326