Different ethical theories offer varied perspectives on the meritocracy in wealth distribution. For instance, libertarianism aligns closely with meritocratic ideals, asserting that wealth distribution should reflect individual effort and talent, without external interference. In contrast, egalitarian theories, including some interpretations of utilitarianism, may advocate for wealth redistribution regardless of individual merit, if it enhances overall happiness or equality. Rawls' theory of justice maintains that while merit might justify differential wealth to some extent, the ultimate distribution must still favour the least advantaged. Virtue ethics, rather than focusing on merit or outcomes, would emphasise the moral character involved in the creation and distribution of wealth.

The 'capability approach', formulated by Amartya Sen and further developed by Martha Nussbaum, provides a framework for evaluating individual well-being beyond mere income levels, focusing on the ability of individuals to pursue a life they have reason to value. This approach plays a crucial role in discussions of wealth distribution as it emphasises the importance of providing individuals with the capabilities or freedoms to achieve well-being. It argues for the redistribution of resources not just to eliminate poverty but to expand the capabilities of individuals, thereby offering a more nuanced perspective on how wealth should be allocated to support meaningful human development and equality of opportunity.

'Desert-based' theories of justice, which contend that people should receive benefits according to what they deserve, significantly impact discussions on wealth distribution. These theories raise questions about the criteria for deservingness—whether it is effort, contribution, merit, or need. They challenge egalitarian and utilitarian frameworks by arguing that justice is not solely about need or utility but about giving people their due according to some morally relevant standard. The debate extends into the realm of public policy where issues such as progressive taxation and welfare benefits are assessed not only on the basis of economic efficiency or social welfare but also on whether they respect what individuals deserve. This impacts how societies conceptualise and implement redistributive measures.

The social contract can be used to justify wealth redistribution, with philosophers interpreting it in diverse ways. For Rousseau, the social contract was about ensuring the general will, which could support redistribution for the community's common good. Hobbes' interpretation would be less likely to advocate redistribution, focusing instead on the maintenance of peace and order. Locke might permit redistribution only insofar as it doesn't infringe upon basic property rights. Rawls' interpretation, favouring egalitarian principles, provides the strongest justification for redistribution within a social contract framework, arguing that wealth should be arranged to benefit the most disadvantaged as a matter of fair cooperation among citizens.

Ethical theories provide varied perspectives on inheritance. Utilitarianism might assess inheritance based on the outcomes it produces. If the inheritance leads to greater overall happiness, it may be considered ethically justifiable. On the contrary, a Rawlsian view could argue that inheritance disrupts the fairness of the social system unless it benefits the least advantaged. Libertarianism staunchly defends inheritance as a part of individual property rights and freedoms. Meanwhile, virtue ethics would examine the character and intentions behind the bequeathing and receiving of inheritance, and communitarianism would encourage viewing inheritance within the context of community values and social well-being.