Distributive justice requires the power of philosophical reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social problems, the most pragmatic solution must be carefully crafted to fill the biggest gaps. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that each society decides the value of a social good and should therefore distribute these goods according to the meaning they have. Social goods (health care, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each with their own distributive arguments. Walzer's acceptance of the pluralistic nature of the human group and ideology leads to his argument of complex equality, which contrasts with the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian liberalism. Essentially, liberalism emphasizes equality of opportunity so that everyone has equal access to goods. To make this work, political theorist John Rawls proposes a monolithic society, one that creates principles linked by its proposition of an original position (a set of political principles that every member of the society agrees with) behind a veil of ignorance (although experiences which free man from current attachments). This form of egalitarianism requires people to start in the same areas of life and compensate for disadvantages that may have been caused either socially or naturally. Walzer, however, disagrees with this system. He insists that this system is practically impossible since humans cannot detach themselves from their history and belonging once choices have been made. The question he asks is not what rational individuals would choose under universalizing conditions, but rather what... middle of paper ... we should embrace what is already at our doorstep. Transcending the social meanings of values ​​that people place will not help solve current problems. Walzer's understanding of the pluralistic nature of human ideology is the most pragmatic solution. The Rawlsian distribution of goods is practically impossible because it requires so much rigor to enforce the equality of men. The separation of the spheres, however, provides a solution to which it embraces what humans already possess. Creating new principles means people have to start again and break away. I favor Walzer's view because he recognizes that humans are not monists but have a multiplicity of ideas that make life more complex than simple rational equality. In this sense, the conclusion is that the separation and recognition of distinct classes of goods is Walzer's concept of complex equality..