Final answer:
The correct answer is option b. To prove fairness in an end-result view, outcomes must be equal, yet this approach suffers from lacking a clear definition of fairness (option b). The end-result method does not consider individual circumstances or the processes leading to outcomes, which complicates its application in real-world distributive justice.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Stone, those who take an end-result view of fairness would need to prove a current distribution is fair by showing that outcomes must be equal, which corresponds to option (a). However, a significant underlying weakness of the end-result approach is its lack of a clear definition of fairness, aligning with option (b). The approach may not account for individual efforts, contributions, or circumstances, implying a potential source of controversy regarding what equal outcomes entail or how they are achieved. It may ignore the complexities of individual circumstances and the processes leading to those outcomes, which can lead to intense debate over the principles of equality and equity in the context of distributive justice.
The debate around distributive justice, as highlighted by philosophers such as Dworkin and Rawls, reflects differing ideologies in the allocation of wealth and resources. While Dworkin's model allows for individual choices to lead to unequal economic benefits, Rawls' Difference Principle accommodates inequalities only to the extent that they benefit the least advantaged without compromising equal liberty. Criticisms of each model reflect the complexities of justice and the challenges inherent in creating systems that are both fair and just across diverse societal and personal circumstances.