According to John Rawls, distributive justice (the proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society) must follow two basic principles. First, every person must have an equal right to basic liberties, like freedom of person, conscience, religion, speech, and politics. These rights deserve, Rawls asserts, the most extensive level of liberty, and people should never settle for a lesser degree unless it would inhibit the liberty of others in some way. Anything else would be irrational.

Second, social and economic inequalities will exist, Rawls acknowledges, but such should arise from positions or offices that are equally open to all in a fair opportunity. He is talking here about wealth, social positions, jobs, and the likes. True justice means equal opportunities for attaining these benefits.

What's more, any inequalities that are allowed should actually benefit those who are disadvantaged. In other words, those who are least well off should in some way benefit from the inequality that comes from some people having jobs or wealth. Rawls calls this the "Difference Principle." We might use the example of a very wealthy person with a high-paying job. Rawls would argue that the inequality inherent in this person's position should only be allowed if it benefits those who are not as well off—if, for instance, the person donates part of his or her money to support the poor.

For Rawls, the first principle is always more important than the second, and the second should give way to it when necessary.

Robert Nozick, on the other hand, offers his "Entitlement Theory." He thinks that people must acquire what they have according to the principles of justice. Only then will they really be entitled to hold it. They must also transfer what they have according to the principles of justice and receive only according to the principles of justice. Otherwise, they are not entitled to the holding. In other words, justice must stand behind any and all ownership, buying, and selling.