Social Justice
Social Justice
Notes on Justice
Part IV
The concept of justice is a normative concept, i.e., by saying that something is just, we are endorsing it, and by saying that something is unjust we are condemning it. The concept of justice is usually analyzed in terms of fairness of distribution. The most popular principles of fairness of distribution are: equality, needs, efforts, contribution, merit. It is difficult to decide which of these principles we should apply in a particular situation in order to achieve justice. We discussed cases in which the application of the wrong principle results in an injustice. For example, a rich patient can by-pass the waiting list for a liver transplant by using his money or social status. In this situation, the principles of contribution or social merit conflict with our intuitive understanding of what would be fair and just. Thus, the principles of fairness of distribution do not by themselves secure justice. For this reasons philosophers have tried to come up with a more specific account of justice.
I introduced the distinction between deterministic and in-deterministic theories of social justice. The deterministic approach seeks to identify some objective regularities which may determine the fairness of distribution. On the other hand, the in-deterministic approach relies on the free will of the individuals to decide what is fair and just. Your textbook is focused primarily on the in-deterministic approach. We discussed the theories of John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls. All these theories rely on the social-contract understanding of society and the free will of the individual to enter into a social contract.
According to Mill, justice is the appropriate name for certain social utilities by which the general good is realized. Mill does specify some practical steps which are supposed to promote social justice, namely, greater participation of the workers in the business ventures and greater equality of income. Mill’s proposals seem to have some appeal but it is difficult to see them as a realistic solution to the problem of social justice.
Robert Nozick advocates the libertarian approach to social justice. Nozick endorses Locke’s theory of natural rights and Locke’s understanding of property as materialized labor. The libertarians believe that the government should not try to act as superior agency of social justice and should leave the economy to regulate itself. According to Nozick, any government attempt to implement social justice would be misguided and unjustifiable interference in the process of economic development.
According to John Rawls, the principles of justice are whatever would be agreed to by rational, self-interested, and un-envious persons. These people would know that they are to enter a society structured according to their agreement. However, these people do not know what position they would have and what their natural endowments and interests would be. This hypothetical initial situation Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. According to Rawls justice is fairness and the veil of ignorance would help people to create the terms of a fair social contract. Rawls specifies two principles of social