The principle or set of principles explaining what justice requires when some good (or bad) is distributed amongst persons. The general requirement of distributive justice is suum cuique, to each his or her due; but this does not yet explain how we should determine what is due to a person. Common bases for this calculation are needs, rights or entitlement, and desert. Hence what is due to a person would depend, respectively, on level of neediness, on rights or similar claims already possessed, or on desert. All three notions need further elaboration, and desert is especially open to interpretation. Disputes about distributive justice arise in three principal ways. The first dispute concerns the spheres in which we are willing to apply notions of distributive justice. Are the requirements of distributive justice to be applied to just any (dis)benefit persons may enjoy, or should its sphere be restricted—for example, is distributive justice relevant to developing friendship? A second source of difficulty arises if a measure of need, desert, or entitlement is required. For example, even those who might agree that distributive justice should respond to neediness or merit can disagree about how to assess it. Lastly, what is the proper response to the number of possible interpretations of suum cuique? For example, should we recognize only one distributive principle to be used across all spheres? Or should we take account of a plurality of principles, perhaps by using different principles within different spheres? What is to be done when the principles require conflicting distributions?
— Andrew Reeve




