Can Social Justice be Justified?

Can Social Justice Be Justified ?

            Glen Beck once told his listeners that if their church teaches social justice, they should leave that church. Beck walked his talk by leaving the Catholic Church          

            The mention of social justice, sometimes called economic justice, arouses controversy, not only in terms of what is right and wrong, but even in terms of what the concept means. Some deny that the concept has any meaning.  Another name for social justice, “distributive justice,” evokes the question of how the material goods of the world should be distributed. The views on this issue vary from those who argue that the current situation is radically unfair and that redistribution is a moral imperative, to those who argue that the whole notion of social justice is fraudulent and that no one has the right to distribute anything except his or her own property. A representative expression of the dismissal of social  justice by some conservatives is found in a column by economist Thomas Sowell: “What does ‘economic justice’ mean except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?”

            Is the present system just? When offered to a class of college students, or to a group of adults, my experience shows that this question can produce a lot of heat and unproductive opinions unless we can achieve some clarity on the meaning of justice. Some assume that justice means equality and point out that the current situation is patently unjust. Opponents of social justice agree that social justice means equality, and so they reject the notion of social justice as a theft against those who have earned wealth. Also, those who reject social justice often depict it as a disguise to increase the power of government.

            The whole notion of social justice requires clarification. Justice generally means the right distribution of benefits and burdens. Differences abound on the question of what constitutes “right distribution” As a step toward clarification we can express the notion of justice as follows: “Every person should get what he or she deserves. No one in a society should be arbitrarily deprived of its benefits nor arbitrarily made to carry its burdens.” The question remains as to what benefits and burdens, if any, belong to an individual simply by being a member of a society. Clearly, we do not all receive equal benefits or carry equal burdens. This fact of inequality does not necessarily constitute injustice, but it provides an opening into a better understanding. Taking factual inequality as a starting point, we ask whether any reasons justify the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens.

Capitalism and Justice

            Some defenders of capitalism argue that the inequalities brought about by a free market, are justified by the fact that those who receive more are precisely those who contribute more as judged by the market. A Capitalist view of justice, playing on the Marxian principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” states, "From each according to his willingness to participate in the system; to each according to his success in participating.” In capitalism, the principle is not simply “from each according to his or her ability,” but from each according to his or her ability and willingness to contribute. The willingness consists not only of a general willingness to work, but to do a particular kind of work, or develop a particular kind of skill, or a particular entrepreneurial idea. For example, one person might learn a construction trade such as brick-laying or carpentry and wish to work in construction; another may want to start a small business such a restaurant; a third might want to work in management for a corporation.  If these each achieve what they set out to do, they will receive a wage, profit, or salary, and the economy will benefit from their particular skill and work. Anyone may fail because of lack of ability or because their skills are not needed at a given time. In the example above, a business recession may lead to a loss of livelihood for all three. According to the capitalist or free-market theorist, such a loss is a misfortune but not an injustice.

            The terms “capitalist” and “libertarian” often overlap and sometimes are used interchangeably. Libertarians generally believe that individual freedom should be maximized and that government activity should be limited to the military and police work of preventing force and fraud. Of course, not all capitalists are libertarians, nor do they necessarily reject the notion of using public funds to help people in need. While the libertarians reject the notion of social justice, capitalists may defend the value of social justice but affirm that the free market is the most just distributor of wealth. They base their arguments on the fact that a person’s ability and willingness to work create wealth not only for that person, but for the whole society. The successful capitalists, while becoming rich, also provide jobs, products, and tax revenue. Without the activity of the capitalist, everyone would be less well-off, including those who are relatively poor.

A Reasonable Approach to Economic Justice

            Given the libertarian argument that no one has the right to distribute any property other than his or her own, and given the capitalist argument that the market can distribute goods more justly than any other human mechanism, is there a need for a separate category of social justice? In fact there are two moral principles that create a mandate for clear thinking on social justice. These principles are the notion that the goods of the earth belong to all, and the notion of moral equality, meaning that every human being has the right to be treated with respect. Merely stating these principles does not necessarily disprove the argument that a free market provides the best distribution, nor does it prove that any existing inequalities are unjust. But the principles do require us to examine what constitutes social justice and to work toward its implementation.

            One of the strongest arguments for social justice, if not for equality, stems from the notion that the goods of the earth belong to all. This argument did not arise in pre-modern times when the land was thought to belong to the king, or to a feudal strongman who was literally a land lord. This notion changed drastically with the Enlightenment when thinkers such as John Locke argued that things in their natural state belonged to all. But he laid down the basis for private property by arguing that things have value only when mixed with human labor. Since the work of our hands is ours individually, the product of that work is also ours as private property. This principle established both the basis for justice and the approval of inequality. Inequalities result from some persons working more effectively than others thus creating more value. But the inequalities have to be justified since the goods begin by belonging equally to all.

            A second Enlightenment idea that leads to a notion of social justice is the moral equality of all human beings. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the notion of equality referred to moral, political, and legal equality, but not to economic equality. But if we are by nature equal as human beings, some justification must be given if economic inequality is to be morally acceptable and not merely a result of  the more powerful grabbing more than they deserve. While few people today argue for a simple equality, we differ widely among ourselves as to how much inequality can be tolerated, and on what grounds. The libertarians argue that any inequality is justified as long as there is no force or fraud involved.

            I contend, to the contrary, that there is a place for public policy that can rightly be called social justice. Although problems that can be solved by individuals and communities should not be taken over by government, nevertheless there are some problems that can be dealt with only in the public sphere. We can discern injustice in the structures and laws of society, and therefore we can define what constitutes social justice. Some of the more obvious historical examples of social injustice include slavery and discrimination. But others examples include omissions, such as the failure on the part of the public sector to protect individuals from the results of environmental destruction, dangerous or exploitative working conditions, and inferior educational opportunities.

            Any person’s concept of justice is based on his or her concept of what a human being is and why we should be concerned with treating each person justly. The view of the human person presented in this blog  maintains that our capacity for membership in any genuine community rests on the fact that we are rational, free, capable and in need of meaningful work, communal, and needing the opportunity to realize our full physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual capacity. Therefore any structure or practice that inhibits a person from realizing his or her human nature is unjust, and that which promotes it is just. Justice as a moral task can mean doing whatever we can to assure that each person has an opportunity to realize his or her human potential. This entails much more than removal of obstacles such as discrimination.  Real equality of opportunity must include providing the conditions that make realization possible. If a person has the ability and desire to develop productive skills, but lacks the opportunity, does this constitute an injustice? The role of justice lies in determining what each person has the right to and who has the obligation to provide it.

Integrity and Integration in the Economy

            The key to understanding social justice consists in recognizing that we are mutually interdependent. Each of our lives has an impact on countless people of whom we are not aware, and the activities of other people impact each of us. No one in isolation and relying on only his or her own native ability can become an engineer, an accountant, a steamfitter, a golfer, or a musician. All of these things require physical and social structures and involve imitation and intense education, both formal and informal. While those who deny social justice may agree that we have an obligation as individuals to people whom we immediately affect, our universal mutual interdependence requires us to also pay attention to how we collectively impact other people through our political, economic, educational, and civil institutions.

            Any society that excludes some part of the population either by design or by neglect, to that extent suffers a deficiency of justice. Although giving a person a handout, by the state or by private charity, beats letting the person starve or freeze, such largess falls short of justice. The goal of achieving a just society requires that we, individually and collectively, do what we can to assure that each person can take a productive social and economic role.  To achieve this level of inclusiveness would be very difficult if not practically impossible. Nevertheless it is a standard against which we can measure our level of success and failure at building a just society.

            The theme of this blog is purposive integration or “teleological harmony.” We can rate our society as a just society to the extent that each and every individual has a place in the society that enables them to develop their full human potential. There will probably always be misfits, sociopaths, and criminals. The question of social justice requires that we ask whether we are giving each person a chance to be productive and prosperous, and how we treat those who reject or neglect the opportunities that are provided. Whether their problem is physical, psychological or moral, they still belong to the human community. We can move to seek ways to incorporate them although there is no guarantee of success.  Or we can reject or neglect them with the self-assurance that their problem is their fault not ours. As in every aspect of ethics, we can integrate or disintegrate