Social justice

Dmitri Bontoft

Some people are rich while others are poor. When, if ever, are these inequalities acceptable? To what extent can people 'deserve' to have more (or less) wealth? Should we reduce these inequalities and how should this be done?

These are questions that commonly fall under the title 'Social Justice.' It is one of the biggest areas of controversy of our time. It lies at the root of many debates around immigration, race, housing, social policy, taxation and healthcare that divide societies today.

Entitlement Theory - Robert Nozick

Robert Nozick put forward a famously straightforward argument in favour of a libertarian concept of social justice.

Simply put he argued that, starting from a position of complete equality of wealth, many people would voluntarily choose to pay their favourites sports stars (e.g. Wilt Chamberlain, a famous basketball player of the day) to play for them. Wilt Chamberlain would receive a small amount, say $1, from each fan who are very happy to pay that sum. The total would be, say $10,000. This would be enough to persuade Wilt to play an extra game for the fans.

This creates an inequality and since Wilt Chamberlain is such an entertaining player, this might happen a number of times leading to a very unequal situation. He might end up being much richer than everyone else just by playing a few games of basketball.

Nozick argues that if the original situation is just, and there is nothing unjust in people using their money as they please, then there can be no injustice in the result. There's nothing wrong with people spending money as they please or Wilt playing basketball.

The conclusion is that Wilt Chamberlain is entitled to his money because he arrived at it in a fair way. If it is fair that he has more money than other people then it is unfair to treat him differently by taxing him more in order to correct the situation.

Is this argument convincing? Where might this lead? If we don't like where this might end up, what is missing from the argument?

The Social Contract - Rawls

John Rawls was the most influential political philosopher of the 20th Century to the extent that his great work "A Theory of Justice" has been cited in U.S. law courts when delivering judgements. In it Rawls defined what became a kind of orthodoxy for American liberalism. Equality of opportunity with guarantees for the least fortunate.

He argued that equality should be the starting point for all fair wealth distributions but that inequality could be just if and only if that was to the benefit of the least well off. I.e. you are allowed to earn more than me if we are both better off than if we were equal. For example, if you start a business that provides me a job that increases my standard of living, then you are allowed to take more profit than I earn but only so long as any increase in your wealth also increases mine.

This contrasts with Nozick's emphasis on procedural justice (just actions lead to just results) and so Rawls feels the need to explain that this principle is one that the members of society would freely enter into in some way. That makes it a kind of choice hence addressing the intuitive appeal of Nozick's argument that giving up our own wealth to others should be voluntary. This is what is called a "Social Contract" argument.

Centuries previously the social contract in an early form was proposed by Thomas Hobbes as a way of explaining why free individuals would choose to subject themselves to laws. The alternative, as he put it, would be "..the life of man: nasty, brutish and short".

However, survival alone does not provide an explanation why selfish individuals who are talented or strong would agree to exactly what Rawls feels is just. Presumably they might drive a harder bargain.

To tackle this, Rawls came up with the "veil of ignorance". If you didn't know who in a society you would be, either billionaire or beggar then you would choose to minimise the suffering you might need to endure as the poorest. The "veil of ignorance" is the fair way to choose because you are making a choice while having to place yourself in the position of anyone else in society rather than being allowed to be selfish.

What do you think about the veil of ignorance? Is it a problem that there isn't actually a contract and we never actually agree to anything? Does it matter that the poorest may not have had to work as hard as the rich? Do the poorest in society lose anything by this agreement?

Cosmic Justice - Sowell

Thomas Sowell was born into one of the poorest communities in the United States but says it never occurred to him as a child that they were living in poverty. He began his intellectual career as a communist having seen inequalities in society that nobody could explain to his satisfaction but having worked for the U.S, government as an economist he became convinced that bureaucracies serve their own interests rather than the people.

Sowell was a student of Milton Friedman who believed that the citizens themselves are better placed than the state to use their earnings to solve social problems, through providing employment, education, free healthcare if this was needed.

He argues passionately against Rawls' notion of Justice as Fairness and that attempts to redress injustice in society are harmful. As you can read here.

Are these criticisms of state intervention accurate? Is it realistic to expect better solutions to be found by non-state organisations or by individuals themselves? Does it matter that Sowell is an unusually talented person whose experience may not match that of most people who experience poverty?

Communitarianism

Aristotle believed that justice was something that was only created and nurtured in a polis. That is to say a city in which people mixed and dealt with each other (and had lots of spare time because they had slaves to do the hard work.) The laws and customs that came about to help that, created the idea of justice. Outside of the city, justice did not exist. This is a very strong contrast with the roots of liberal justice which lie in a metaphysical commitment to freedom, or individual liberty that exists outside of any given society and to which "just" societies should conform. That is to say: natural justice.

The entitlement theory and much of the reasoning behind modern concepts of liberalism is based on individual liberty and the individual being free to decide their own "good". Different societies appear to have different values, although there seems to be a tendency towards liberal democracy, it hasn't taken root as some thought it would in many countries outside of the west. Is it true that the ideas of justice in other countries will naturally converge on western liberalism, or is that just one of many ways of viewing justice and which is dominant only due to wealth and historical power? Will this dominant view be replaced?

In the communitarian view, humans are inherently social, and are always situated within a context of values defined by their role in their communities. Father, mother, priest, doctor, friend, worker, soldier. All these roles bring identity and meaning and at the same time certain obligations. We have a duty to ourselves but that duty is balanced against these other duties which define that self to some degree.

If I owe this obligation then my entitlement is not only dependent on my free choice or free transactions with others but also on whether or not that is compatible with my duty towards others. The duty to help a fellow citizen, perhaps.

Nationalism, sectarianism and cults

It's worth noting that even if we do accept community obligations that override our indivdual preferences, the extent and limits of these obligations are disputed.

Liberalism was essentially born out of the desire to escape perceived oppressive religious and governmental duties on individuals in the past.

It's also true that some communities (e.g. cults) place obligations that might be accepted by those within communities but seem disturbing to those on the outside.