Social justice is a widely debated term often associated with various political ideologies.
It is essential to recognize that everyone has a conception of social justice, which varies based on individual beliefs, particularly between conservatives and progressives.
Conceptions of Social Justice
There are multiple conceptions of social justice, notably two that focus on equality:
Principles of Distribution:
Need: Distributing resources based on the necessity of individuals.
Merit: Distributing opportunities or resources based on individual merit.
Equality: Distributing resources evenly among all individuals.
Principles of Distribution
Need
Example: Rat Abatement in Washington, D.C.
The city offers rat abatement services based on need; properties with significant rat problems can request assistance, reflecting a need-based allocation system.
Merit
Discussion of jobs in competitive markets.
Desirable jobs are allocated based on merit, where the most qualified individuals are rewarded with opportunities.
Equality
Explanation of voting rights in a democracy.
Each citizen is entitled to one vote, emphasizing the importance of equality in the political process.
Role of the State in Distribution
The state is responsible for deciding how resources and goods are distributed across society.
Heavily influences areas such as healthcare, which can vary significantly between different countries (e.g., the contrast between the U.S. system and universal healthcare in many European nations).
Equality of Opportunity
Concept: Not a standalone theory of social justice, equality of opportunity is a mechanism within broader theories.
Central to the notion of the American Dream, where success is purportedly based on individual effort.
Consists of two parts: competitive process and outcomes.
Balancing Opportunity
It raises questions about how to achieve true equality in opportunity:
Compensation for Disadvantages: Providing additional support for those with fewer advantages.
Leveling the Playing Field: Reducing advantages for individuals who have more opportunities.
Jerry Cohen's Types of Inequality of Opportunity
Bourgeois Equality of Opportunity
Removes barriers caused by prejudice and discrimination.
Example: Ending explicit job ads that discriminate based on race.
Liberal Equality of Opportunity
Compensates for disadvantages inherent in the competitive process.
Example: Accommodations made for individuals with disabilities in competitive exams.
Socialist Equality of Opportunity
Rewards positions equally based on personal preference rather than competition.
Critique: A bureaucracy where roles are determined by choice rather than merit or competition.
The Importance of Leveling Down
Conceptual Example: Runners in a race.
If half the runners lose their shoes, running the race with uneven conditions (some with shoes, some without) may necessitate everyone running without shoes to ensure fairness.
John Rawls's Theory of Justice
Context: A response to the dominant utilitarian view in his book "A Theory of Justice," published in 1971.
Critiqued utilitarianism for being overly focused on aggregating preferences without considering individual rights.
Principles of Justice
First Principle: Equal Rights
Everyone should have equal rights to basic liberties, ensuring maximum liberty compatible with others’ liberties.
Second Principle: Distribution of Resources
Distribution should be held equally, with any deviation justified only if it benefits the worst-off in society.
Introduces the Difference Principle: inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged.
Original Position and Veil of Ignorance
Thought Experiment: Imagining the principles governing a society without knowledge of personal characteristics (race, gender, skill).
Rational choice leads one toward principles that promote equality and opportunity for all, preventing bias from affecting justice judgments.
Critiques of Rawls's Theory
Some critics argue that the original position structures results to favor specific principles, suggesting an inherent bias.
Capabilities Approach
Developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focusing on what individuals can achieve with their lives, thus providing a measure of social justice that looks beyond mere resource distribution.
Functionality of Capabilities
Identifies key capabilities (e.g., being able to work, go to school) that define a full life.
Researchers created a list of capabilities common across all societies to assess richness and quality of life outcomes.
Measures of Justice in Capabilities
Similar to John Rawls, but more individualized; seeks to ensure a minimum baseline level of capabilities for every individual.
Above this threshold, inequalities are accepted.
Addressing Inequality
Neither Rawls nor the Capabilities Approach seeks to equalize wealth but prioritize uplifting the most disadvantaged.
Rawls's approach offers absolute priority, while the Capabilities Approach centers around a threshold, allowing for dynamic societal inequality.
Questions and Criticisms in Social Justice
Are all inequalities unjust?
Neither theory condones wealth redistribution solely to equalize wealth; both focus on lifting the disadvantaged, which is a common approach.
What is the current state of equality?
Reflects how different goods and opportunities are distributed.
Focus on happiness, welfare, and health?
Distinguishes between objective measurable metrics (like resources) and subjective effects (like happiness or well-being).
Responsibility and Justice
Critiques highlight how both Rawls and Nussbaum's efforts do not address why certain individuals fall below thresholds.
Example: Ronald Dworkin's surfer criticism argues against subsidizing lifestyle choices made by individuals resulting in low socioeconomic status, suggesting that support should focus only on those whose disadvantages are not self-imposed.