  The question of "Justice" still divides social research and moral philosophy.
Several Theories of Justice and conceptual approaches compete here, and
distributive justice remains a major societal controversy. From an evolutionary
point of view, fair and just exchange can be nothing but "equivalent", and this
makes "strict" reciprocity (merit, equity) the foundational principle of
justice, both theoretically and empirically. But besides being just, justice
must be effective, efficient, and communicable. Moral reasoning is a
communicative strategy for resolving conflict, enhancing status, and
maintaining cooperation, thereby making justice rather a social bargain and an
optimization problem. Social psychology (intuitions, rules of thumb,
self-bindings) can inform us when and why the two auxiliary principles equality
and need are more likely to succeed than merit would. Nevertheless, both
equality and need are governed by reciprocal considerations, and self-bindings
help to interpret altruism as "very generalized reciprocity". The Meritocratic
Principle can be implemented, and its controversy avoided, by concentrating on
"non-merit", i.e., institutionally draining the wellsprings of undeserved
incomes (economic rents). Avoiding or taxing away economic rents is an
effective implementation of justice in liberal democracies. This would enable
market economies to bring economic achievement and income much more in line,
thus becoming more just.
