In distributive justice theory, competing arguments for considering group-based factors (such as race) in allocating scarce opportunities can be classified into corrective arguments (adjusting for unequal preparation or disadvantage), compensatory arguments (redressing historical injustice), and diversity/common-good arguments (serving a broader social mission), each carrying distinct grounds and distinct objections, particularly concerning whether such policies violate individual rights tied to factors beyond a person's control. Aristotle's competing account holds that justice consists in giving people what they deserve according to the relevant virtue or excellence for the good in question, determined by teleological reasoning — identifying the telos (purpose or end) of a social practice — in contrast to modern rights-based theories (libertarian and egalitarian alike) that deliberately detach distributive justice from moral desert.
In distributive justice theory, competing arguments for considering group-based factors (such as race) in allocating scarce opportunities can be classified into corrective arguments (adjusting for un…