Statistical
processing and overview of data
During the realization phase of the Distributive Justice project, an extensive,
statistically measurable record of participants’ views on various aspects
of the fair division of goods in society was collected. This was generated
in those parts of the project which required the active inclusion of the
participants – on the Internet, at the exhibitions, at the lectures and
discussions and in the sociological surveys.
From the total number of participants in the project, 3497 persons filled
out the on-line questionnaire, and 5793 visitors filled out the printed
questionnaire. The game “Create the Society of Your Choice” was played
by 8426 people and 6615 people played the game “Discover Your Distributive
Profile”.
ON-LINE
GAMES
Statistics to August 1, 2005.
Participants of online games were given the opportunity to create their own model of distribution. Facing the consequences of their own choice, they could compare the fairness of their imagined society with the society in which they live. Two games have been present on the web since August 2001, while the third originated during the exhibition in the USA (Whitney Museum of American Art, New York) from June 2003.
“Create
the Society of Your Choice” is a game which distributes
common goods (money, freedom, social status, possibilities for advancement,
public services, satisfaction). Players are required to distribute common
goods, in accordance with their understanding, in such a way that is closest
in attune with the principles of fairness. Of the 8426 participants of
this game, 7308 passed through all the phases and completed the game.
Of these 3294 were women, and 4014 men.
The number of participants by countries with the most players is: Americans
2005 players, Germans 2143, Italians 347, Turks 289, Croats 244, Canadians
179, Koreans 165, Austrians 106, Dutch 96, British 95, Australians 83,
Belgians 82, Danes 73, French 77, Slovenians 67 etc.
The results for all 7308 players are the following:
 |
Some interesting results by countries:
| AUSTRIA
(106 players) |
KOREA
(165 players) |
 |
 |
| NEW
ZEALAND
(13 players) |
SWEDEN
(15 players) |
 |
 |
“Discover Your Distributive Profile” is a game on the Internet in which visitors can discover their “distributive profile”, or how close their understanding of fairness is to some of the most well-known theories of distributive justice. This game was played by 6619 players of which 3214 played the game to the end. Of these 1354 were women, and 1860 men. The number of participants by countries with the most players is: Americans 1348 players, Germans 636, Croats 119, Turks 109, Canadians 108, Dutch 88, Italians 86, British 85, Australians 60, Irish 53, Belgians 45, Austrians 39, French 31, Koreans 23, Brazilians 17 etc.
The results for all 3214 players are the following:
Some interesting
comments by the plaers in this game
(bold italics are parts of the game that the
comments in continuation refer to, following each comment is the sex,
age group and country which the visitor comes from):
- to take
a part of the football players money is completely fair thing to do (F/4/Croatia)
- income to be taken through laws, through taxes and no otherwise (M/23-29/Croatia)
- I feel that the right to the entire income is important as long as he/she
is sharing and donating to less fortunate members of the society. (F/23-29/US)
- No because of externalities,
in the course of his life he affected the well fare of people around him
in positives and negatives ways, so have to pay the social cost of his
externalities (M/23-29/Brazil)
- No, not the entire income. (F/30-39/US)
- Yes, to prevent other people to get a benefit for NOT working (M/40-49/US)
- People who work more (i.e., longer hours) should benefit--but every
profession should be paid roughly the same. (F/30-39/US)
- Partly, yes; because the individual owns the right of enjoying the fruits
of his hard work. On the other hand, by living in a state, he has consented
to obey it; therefore, he is subject to its laws and has to give part
of his income to the state. I, personally do not buy this argument, but
this is the way it will work: otherwise, we will end up with anarchism.
(M/15-22/Moldova)
- If someone has worked their entire life for something, they have the
right to that money, but they should still assist those who are incapable
of living well. (F/15-22/US)
- Yes, he or she put in a lot time and effort to get where they are.(F/23-29/US)
- the wording "freely" is initially confusing from the example.
everyone has a right to enjoy their income but have a moral obligation
to aid the less fortunate (F/50-59/US)
- everyone understands they have a responsibility to give back before
they pursue any activity or wealth (F/40-49/US)
- No, parts should be used for the common good. (M/23-29/Netherlands)
- A problem of missuses of these benefitions exists. (M/40-49/Croatia)
In my family there is a case of a handicapped person. This person is thankful
for the support of the family. Money is here a factor you need, of course,
more than in other average lifes of human beings (M/15-22/Germany)
- Yes, if the system of doing out such payments is effective and the system
of punishing those who abuse it equally so. (M/23-29/Brazil)
- Food, water, housing medical care should be a human right. (F/40-49/US)
- I am saying yes because I believe that the handicapped or people physically
unable to work should be cared for, those you are just unemployed, should
not! (F/23-29/US)
- That goes without saying. (F/15-22/Australia)
minimum income should be earned not received as a hand out. Society should
provide a job to anyone willing to work. (M/40-49/US)
- If society does not do these things then calling it a society is delusional.
it is merely an amalgamation of individuals (M/30-39/Australia)
- To a certain extent. But also better care should be taken during pregnancies
to avoid birth defects. Pre-natal health care education is severely overlooked
(F/30-39/US)
- A decent society does not leave its members to starve or sleep under
bridges. And more importantly, I'm interested in allowing people to lead
enjoyable, fulfilling lives. Having to worry about where your next meal
is coming from is one of the chief barriers to leading such lives. (M/23-29/New
Zealand)
- Anyone can find himself at a no-win situation ; society should provide
a safety net for those unlucky (M/23-29/Greece)
- As long as we're talking about people who *can't* earn a living, rather
than simply those who won't. (M/30-39/US)
- Family, church, small communities must be strong enough, society has
to be organised in that way (F/40-49/Netherlands)
- Again, for a society to function their is a cost. It is clear that a
free market does not act to protect all of its citizens. A state must
balance capitalist rational with human compassion. (M/15-22/Canada)
- on a case by case basis (M/50-59/Austria)
- This
is a must and something that the US will not ever be able to do due to
its economic structure and social values. (M/23-29/US)
- I think handicapped persons are different from unemployed. If you aren't
putting effort towards improving your situation, no one else should have
to sacrifice to help you. (F/15-22/US)
- We should for the handicapped or sick people, but not for the unemployed.
(F/15-22/Netherlands)
- It could lead some people to leisure (M/15-22/UK)
- society needs to care for the welfare of all in meeting basic needs
(F/50-59/US)
- If we don't take care the less fortunate, the imbalance would lead to
violence.(M/40-49/US)
- Only Physically or Mentally challenged should be helped,, Those who
are fit should not be helped at any cost,,it is their own duty to earn
their living, society is no way responsible for their living (M/23-29/India)
- A Nozick argument would be, no. But the truth is that, it is necessary
to do so in order to maintain a high level of life in the state. There
are poor persons who are no guilty for their poverty, and there are unemployed
people who do not wish to work. In this two categories, the latter do
not deserve free care by the state, because they do not wish to contribute
to the economical system of the state. In general, this is more of a communist
argument than a capitalist one, although i believe in capitalism same
thing happens. The difference is that in Communism everyone works, and
everyone gets according to his needs. (M/15-22/Moldova)
- caring for others is an important point in humanity (F/23-29/Germany)
- the social welfare is the most important segment of the modern state
(F/30-39/Croatia)
- An important safety net. (M/30-39/Germany)
- I don't know, it seems different in cases of mental handicap and physical
handicap. For the physically handicapped, I would say yes, society should
secure such things. But for mentally handicapped people, it might be (this
sounds awful) a waste of resources. I am making the distinction here that
a decent life is one which is pain free and enjoyable while everyday life
involves being an active and productive member of society. I don't know,
it's a horrible question. (M/23-29/Brazil)
- Yes, everybody should get a chance (M/15-22/Germany)
- Well, in the first place things like medicine should not be expensive!
(F/23-29/Argentina)
- If I had a child with a disability who needed medication which I could
not afford, I would hope that my government would help me to help my child.
(F/23-29/Germany)
- Society is, at present, exclusive. We should work on a more inclusive
society in general. (F/30-39/US)
- I think they should make do with what they have. They should not have
an advantage over others. (F/15-22/Ireland)
- if these people are unable to create a proper living for themselves,
they shouldn't suffer as a result (F/15-22/Ireland)
- depend which are the special needs. The medical supplies you indicate
are not special but basic needs for those people. But, theatres and concerts
i definitely wont pay them (M/15-22/Croatia)
- EVERYONE should be able to take part in everyday life. (F/40-49/US)
- Depends on the situation and the (possible) results of such expenses.
(M/23-29/Netherlands)
- Must be within sustainable and reasonable bounds (M/15-22/Australia)
- It is an ethical question. And the answer to it might be utilitarian.
If the state really wants greater good for the greater people, then it
should make this step. Only, I would propose not to buy expensive medical
care but provide it for no charge; In this way, the government will insure
a correct spending of the provided resources. (M/15-22/Moldova)
- No, because people would hardly give anything if they
don't have to. (F/23-29/Germany)
- No. I believe that once people are earning enough money to keep themselves
in the best of health and comfort, the rest of the money they possess
is meaningless and does them no real service compared to the service that
same money could be providing for others. there needs to be a legal benchmark
of maximum income. (F/15-22/Australia)
- No,
the state should tax the person so in someway that person is giving back
to the society. (M/23-29/US)
- Society has a right to maintain some balance. (M/40-49/US)
- All capital should be subject to a certain amount of taxation to insure
the capacity of our society to care for all its citizens and the environment
and even to afford the ability to give to others less fortunate in other
countries. (F/50-59/US)
- Balance! I think it-s a question of how to value one persons work compared
to the others, i don-t agree with a system who is rewarding some work
with a ridiculous amount of money. Anyhow, solidarity is a reason for
a society, i don-t see why we should not help each other out to be sure
of a just treatment on the other side of the coin. (F/23-29/Sweden)
- In a normative sense this position is correct, in that such taking of
justly acquired property from the individual by the state amounts to theft.
In a practical sense this injustice must be endured for the sake of greater
social justice. The ideal situation would be one in which the rich man
voluntarily dispenses of his fortune to the needy without the intervention
of the state. (M/15-22/US)
- Grotius argued that private property was valid so long as it did not
prevent people from meeting their basic needs. (M/15-22/Canada)
- NO, but he/she must have some kind of a privileged / there must be an
award for him (F/15-22/Turkey)
- The rich, by virute of luck or talent or hard work, should be made responsible,
by the gov't to help those in need. (M/23-29/Philippines)
- No, social benefits are more important. (M/15-22/France)
- No, but taxation should be as low as possible (10% maximum!) (M/30-39/Germany)
- Market price is never 'just'. The whole concept of 'just' is alien to
the market concept. (M/30-39/US)
- If this question is about people and companies having to pay taxes on
what they make then I agree that they should. Taxes should not, however,
be a hindrance to the companies. If taxes are too high the companies may
move away and then the money that they make will do no good to the needy
at all. (F/23-29/Germany)
- Ones actions
affect the quality of others' lives. (M/30-39/-)
- The land that people live on, with all that it contains, belongs to
all and should not be used by one person at the expense of others. (F/23-29/Germany)
- Yes, if the person owns all legal rights to that good. (M/15-22/US)
- I believe that person has a certain ethical responsibility to others,
in the case of life-saving matters such as a waterhole in the desert,
but that doesn't mean he can't turn some profit for his efforts. (F/30-39/US)
- is there anybody who answer yes to this question? (F/40-49/US)
- even though, a person discover a good but, is that good a need or a
want. if it is a need, then it must be shared with society. if it is a
want, then that person has a right to benefit from it. (M/30-39/US)
- although we are responsible for our own well-being, we also have a sense
of duty to the community, and it would be unfair to prevent access to
resources simply because we were lucky enough to find them first, especially
if we didn't put them there (F/15-22/Ireland)
- This concept of ownership and property was invented by humans, and it
does not supersede the right of all people to cover their basic needs.
(F/30-39/US)
- Absolutely not, the nature is not a private property (F/23-29/Italy)
- It is always the second person with more guns or might who acquires
what the first person discovers. (M/30-39/SiCG)
- What comes immediately to mind is the distribution of natural resources
and food - goods which are necessary for all but unjustly distributed
resulting in people starving in many parts of the world while people in
other parts of the world are obese. (F/40-49/US)
- Your examples seem weighted (M/23-29/US)
- No, but the history teaches us the opposite lesson. (M/23-29/US)
- Ownership and control of natural resources should be limited to insure
fair distribution. (F/23-29/US)
- this person should share the water .. it was just a question of luck!
(F/30-39/Croatia)
- Resources vital for life cannot be controlled w/o social consent - it
will lead to turmoil and social conflict (M/23-29/Greece)
- You know, this depends. I think white people had a right to settle in
America. The indians didn't have a right to keep such a big piece of land
all to themselves. (M/30-39/Israel)
- It is selfish, but it is up to that person. (F/15-22/US)
- None of exist within a vacuum. We have responsibilities to those around
us. (M/30-39/US)
- depending on the discovery and the benefit of the good that discovered,
it must be shared by the whole society collaboratively (F/15-22/Turkey)
- This is one of the strengths and flaws of the U.S., since appropriation
(especially cutural) is one of - the veneers by which the country is at
its global status today. (M/23-29/US)
- Sharing goes before owning. We first share all goods, and only for a
cause or reason we appropriate them, it is not the initial state of things
and there is no natural right to property. (F/15-22/Netherlands)
- Yes, as long as fair prices are paid for the goods (M/50-59/ Netherlands)
- no. the roots of colonialism, exploitation, and racism (M/30-39/US)
- resources should be shared with those in the area, whose existence depends
on this resource. (F/50-59/US)
- The appropriation of goods and their use must not disadvantage another
individual and impact on their ability to live and enjoy life. (M/23-29/Australia)
- Everybody has equal right on resources given by god nature (M/23-29/India)
- The community is far more important than the individual. The greater
good must always be aimed at. (M/15-22/Canada)
- yes, he can retain , but the government have to discipline the rights
and create some tax (M/23-29/Brazil)
- Yes, if they let him... (M/30-39/Germany)
- all natural goods must be freely used by all needed persons. An artificial
good is another thing... (M/23-29/France)
- No, i am not agree with the fullish American thesis “conquer the wild
west” (F/30-39/Croatia)
- If society cannot
solve a problem it shouldn't blame or punish individual. (M/40-49/Croatia)
- define "inferior". what matters is equal chances, everybody's
right to decent living, and prevention of exclusion - not absolute equality.
(M/40-49/Croatia)
- This doesn't solve the problem of equal opportunity: this solves the
problem of jealousy. I don't approve. (M/30-39/Israel)
- The person who works the hardest deserves the good, if that can't be
determined, yes (M/15-22/US)
- thats just stupid (F/15-22/US)
- It is a difficult question but it is also unfair to take away from the
better off, especially if they have worked hard for it. If the better
off were to loose their profits in order to help the poor then they may
not work hard anymore and that cannot be the right answer. (F/23-29/Germany)
- difficult question, i rather think, in the statet example, one should
keep the overflow for another critical situation. But the people who have
more should be asked to donate the goods or keep them in store, so it
stais available for the next situation. So it is no real no and no real
ies, because i would not want resources to be DESTROID...! (F/50-59/Germany)
- it won´t work, because private property is one of the coloums of our
western political systems. You have to change law first ! Revolution numer
what ? (F/30-39/Germany)
- if the minimum is
approved for everybody it does not matter that there are millionaires
and billionaires (F/23-29/Belgium)
- the position of the worst off should be examined. How bad is it? It
is not worth sacrificing a small number to make things slightly more pleasant
for others over all. (F/23-29/UK)
- Provide basic benefits for all, but don't try to create an absloutely
even playing field. it doesn't work. (F/50-59/US)
- what would you answer if you were in the unemployed group? I just want
you to understand my answer. (F/40-49/US)
- Economic sacrifice of "above-average welfare" citizens is
warranted to improve public welfare, but not of "below-average welfare"
citizens. I'm saying no because of the example you give but the example
I give would be a yes. (M/40-49/US)
- There is not much of a difference between millionaires and billionaires.
You still have a lot if not too much money to live. Money does not buy
happiness (F/15-22/Ireland)
- we all have the right and some sort of ability to make something of
ourselves and if the billionaires have worked harder than the millionaires
to get where they are, fair play to them!!! (F/15-22/Ireland)
9. Improvement of material position of the whole society, measured in terms of average welfare, justifies economic “sacrifice” of some individuals - in a sense that their welfare could be made lower if this is needed for an accomplishment of that aim.
- The "sacrifice"
should affect as few as possible.(M/23-29/Germany)
- That seems more fair. (F/40-49/US)
- Redistribution of wealth among members of a society that have all their
needs met just to maintain equality among standing is not logical. Society
should allow for individual differences, and reward and encourage creative
work and ideas. (F/50-59/US)
- society should allow
for individual difference and encourage creative work and ideas.
(F/50-59/US)
- There is a tentation
of a dictatorship if a government want absolutely that the people is happy
in a way that the government choose. We must be happy in the way we want.
(M/15-22/France)
- not sure, but i disagree with the example. if people are given equal
opportunities and these opportunities are exploited, that will just lead
once again to inequality. (F/15-22/Australia)
- I don't trust the State to define "happiness" for me. (M/23-29/New
Zealand)
Society should assure a decent income and basic liberties but should allow
individuals to determine what makes them happy or not. (F/50-59/US)
- By and large yes. But not completely: Education should be free and compulsory,
for example. (M/30-39/Israel)
- Too complex intervention doesn't work (M/23-29/Greec)
- I don't trust the State to define "happiness" for me. (M/23-29/New
Zealand)
- humanity not material items should be the base of all decisions. (F/23-29/Canada)
- the point is only:
who defines the criteria? (F/23-29/Germany)
- Yes, because this kind of situation clearly lead to extremes if there
is no interventions. (M/23-29/Brazil)
- Different criteria are applicable for different goods. (F/30-39/US)
- Various
criteria are important, but not necessarily tied to the good itself. I
think that decisions are sounder when they're being made in regard to
the complete situation, i.e. the interest of people and organizations
involved as well as some criteria involved with the good that needs to
be allocated. (M/23-29/Netherlands)
- Merit should be given according to what people do, but people should
also give back to society based on what they can do. (F/15-22/US)
- All able citizens have a responsibility to care for others and society
as a whole. (M/23-29/Canada)
- neither punishments nor rewards should be given in any way they are
currently understood. (F/15-22/Canada)
- Distribution based on realistic understanding of needs, abilities, talents
etc. (M/23-29/Australia)
- One criterion does not always fit all situations and people must work
to keep society functioning. (F/50-59/US)
- based on effort and
talent (F/40-49/US)