ABSTRACT
Contemporary theories of distributive justice give short shrift to the notion of desert: distribution in accordance with desert is no part of what is advocated either by utilitarians or contractarians, egalitarians or libertarians. The radical challenge—according to which all judgments of distributive justice must be regarded as desert based—is unsustainable, for at least two reasons. First, there are many familiar contexts in which questions of distributive justice arise but in which the notion of desert cannot appropriately be invoked. Second, while there are certain other contexts, it seems to be a necessary condition of the claim that merit or desert is a principle of distributive justice in these contexts that certain desert -independent principles of distributive justice should be presumed to be satisfied. The distributive arrangements mandated by the ideal of equality under the law are arrangements for which a justice rationale can readily be provided.
