GVPT 241 chapter 6 reading Equality and social justice

Many societies historically have provided support to vulnerable members through institutions such as parish relief or the poor law.
These forms of support were often regarded as charity (Key Concept 6.1) or religious duty until the twentieth century.
The twentieth century marked a shift, arguing that social support is a requirement of justice, entitling individuals to assistance if they cannot support themselves.

Social Justice: The idea that the distribution of resources, opportunities, working conditions, and wage patterns can be assessed based on principles of justice.
Post-World War II, social justice became a significant reference point in political discussions in the UK.

The social services acted as a refuge for various social classes during the Blitz.
The centralized war economy contrasted with the pre-war laissez-faire capitalism that had resulted in strikes and economic hardship.
Working together against a common enemy fostered unity among different social classes, leading to greater sympathy and justice among citizens.

This report laid the groundwork for the British welfare state, declaring that social policies should eliminate the five giants: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness (unemployment).
Similar movements in the US included Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, and Johnson's Great Society.

There exists a debate over whether the poor have a moral right to assistance, establishing a link between the duties of the rich and ideas of justice versus charity.
Duties of Justice: Typically state-enforced obligations.
Duties of Charity: Private obligations based on individual discretion and can often be deemed demeaning.

The Poor Law was established in the early seventeenth century in England and Wales to support the sick, elderly, and impoverished.
Initially, it was the responsibility of each parish to aid those in need.
By the eighteenth century, workhouses were created, and support could be refused if individuals declined to enter these institutions.
Motivations for the Poor Law included religious duty and self-protection against crime.

The publication A Theory of Justice (1971) by John Rawls stands as a critical point in articulating principles of social justice.
Rawls emphasizes:
- Basic Liberty Principle: Each individual has equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberties for all.
- Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should benefit the least advantaged.
- The principle of fair equality of opportunity must also be considered.

Rawls introduces the idea of Lexical Priority, where:
- The Basic Liberty Principle takes precedence in case of conflict over economic inequalities.
- The fair equality of opportunity principle also has priority over the difference principle.

Rawls vs. Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill):
- Utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall happiness, which can unjustly favor the majority at the expense of the minority.
- Rawls' principles uphold individual rights and prioritize the least advantaged in society.

Rawls argues for justice principles based on an imagined position behind a veil of ignorance, where no one knows their social position, abilities, or characteristics.
This thought experiment encourages principles of justice that are impartial and beneficial to all societal roles.

The feminist and political climate in the UK around the 1970s saw a backlash against social justice ideals due to the effects of socialist policies.
Factors like high taxation, inefficiency in nationalized industries, strong trade unions, and economic disputes led to public resentment.
Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government moved toward privatization and dismantling welfare entitlements, paralleling Reagan’s policies in the USA, which emphasized economic efficiency over social justice.

Rawls intertwines themes from classical social contract frameworks, endorsing principles of liberal egalitarianism that provide equal rights, opportunities, and the best possible outcomes for the least advantaged.
His work influenced labor party discussions, arguing that society should correct natural inequalities and promote citizen welfare throughout their lives.

Figures such as Friedrich von Hayek argue against the concept of social justice, labeling it a Mirage, asserting that it hinders economic growth.
Robert Nozick argues that as long as property is acquired justly, any resulting distribution is just.

Egalitarian theorists face challenges addressing individual responsibility, particularly the moral obligations linked to personal choices in wealth and poverty.
Critics argue it is unjust for the hardworking to fund those who choose not to work.

Discussions center on the nature of equality in social justice.
- Questions arise on whether true equality requires equality of wealth, happiness, or mere opportunity.
- Differing perspectives on how to define justice complicate the conversation around equity and standards of living.

Sufficiency Theory: Proposes that justice is achieved when all have enough to lead fulfilling lives.
Prioritarian Theory: Advocates prioritizing the worst off in society, recognizing that some inequalities can be beneficial if they aid those in need.

The interplay between personal responsibility, the currency of justice, and the definitions of equality raises nuanced debates.
Philosophers like Ronald Dworkin and G.A. Cohen argue that resources, not merely outcomes, should factor into justice definitions, combining elements of equality, liberty, and opportunity in their frameworks.

Suggests that justice centers on capability to function, as proposed by theorists like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.
It emphasizes what people can achieve and become rather than solely their material holdings or happiness.
Sen critiques focusing purely on functionings, suggesting instead that government responsibility lies in providing the means of achieving capability while respecting individual choices.

The conversation surrounding social justice continues to evolve, with competing theories struggling to reconcile principles like equality, distribution, and individual responsibility.
Recent political dialogues suggest renewed interest in social justice, though significant challenges remain in practical policy application and the quest for a just society.