Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

When Aristotle discussed the concept of Justice - he spoke of remedial or corrective justice, which specified how to punish offenders of the law, but he also spoke of distributive justice, where he asked how much each one should get of what, or: how should resources be justly distributed? Aristotle's concept of distributive justice is what is currently known under the term 'social justice'. It is thus not a 'new' concept, but one that has been occupying the minds of people since the ancient period.

We'll have a look at three principles that are often put forward as a basis for 'just' distribution of resources:
1. The principle of merit and desert
2. The principle of need
3. The principle of equality

The principle of merit and desert states that people should be treated according to what they deserve. Material rewards should only be handed out to the deserving. When someone receives something they didn't deserve or when someone doesn't receive something they DO deserve, an injustice occurred in this view.

The question that arises here, of course is: What constitutes a merit?

Is the fact that someone is more talented a basis on which to provide them with more material wealth? Does the person deserve this or is a person's talent merely a matter of luck or chance, and so - not part of one's merit? But then, what about those people who have a talent that they developed themselves through hard work, something they did not have a natural disposition towards, but a skill they developed until they became talented in it? And then - how to distinguish between natural endowments and merits?

Or does merit have to do not so much with how much one contributes by virtue of one's talents, but based on how much effort a person puts in. Here - two people who are equally productive may not be rewarded the same way, because for one it was a struggle while for the other it was a breeze. So - then, the reward-system of distribution based on deserts would create incentive for individuals to place themselvs in positions of struggle just so they could 'earn more'. But is that the kind of life you would encourage for individuals? And - if each one acts accordingly, by choosing a profession or a task they struggle at most - will this really produce the best results for society as a whole?

According to liberalists, the free market is the best system to evaluate merit and desert, where prices and wages determine what a person's contribution is worth to others in society. Yet - herein is not considered that most successful businessmen or businesswomen are not so because of 'merit' or 'desert', but because of privileged backgrounds, because of heritage, because of luck and because of socio-economic access to opportunities. And a classic example I like to use is: who deserves the highest pay: the mineworker who physically works every day or the CEO of the mining company whose most strenuous effort is to place a signature here and there? What is often argued is that the CEO has an investment to lose, and therefore is putting more on the line - but then the counterargument is of course: is the mineworker not putting his life on the line and is the CEO's investment worth as much as his own life?

Liberalists like to pretend that the free market models are perfect for assessing the merit of individuals in how much they contribute to society, but they are actually merely using these models to justify why such huge inequality exists - where they can say: 'Well, you're worse off because that's what you deserve'. And then difficult-sounding jargon is used and graphs are presented that apparently prove their point - but the truth of the matter is: the free market system is not based within merit - it is merely based within competition - and herein, the system does not consider who works harder or who deserves more - it does not make such value judgments - it simply balances opposing forces and then ends up somewhere in between.

Others of a more socialist orientation propose a planned economy, where a person's merit is directly measured by a public institution, such as a government. However, the problem still remains in objectively stipulating the conditions under which we are now speaking of merit and whether such merit-based system will provide the most favorable resutlts.

Psychologically speaking, deserts are linked to a person's expectations. If a person expects to receive high material rewards and then does not receive them, a perception of unjust deprivation will arise, whereas - if a person has adjusted its expectations to previous patterns and as such, does not expect much, may not feel as though they are being deprived of what they deserve - simply because the expectation pattern is different. However, does that mean that the one person is really being deprived and the other not? Is there an objective way of establishing just reward versus unjust deprivation or are these concepts too much influenced through relative perception?

Related articles

• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

This Blog is a continuation to: Day 219: Equality and Human Rights – it is suggested to read the previous post for context.

In the last blog we ended with Plato’s assessment that humans were essentially unequal within being ‘different’. It’s interesting that the concept of Equality was not investigated further – if Equality did not lie within one’s characteristics which would define one’s position and function in society, then why are we not looking further? Could our Equality be somewhere else?

The point that every human shares, the point that all Living Beings share – is that they are alive. We are all Equally, living, breathing, beings – Here – on this Planet. So whether you are a person with the characteristics to make a philosopher or a person with the characteristics to make a baker – the fact still stands that you are a human and you are alive. This stands indeterminate of the variety of characteristics we share among ourselves that make us ‘different’. So even though we are ‘different’, we can, and are still, equal: in Life – and should treat each other accordingly.

Instead, we’ve taken the premise “We are different, and thus we are unequal” and have used this to justify why we do not value and respect one another equally, and used this as the foundation to create separation among ourselves – and in essence, alienate ourselves from one another, where we end up believing that just because we have certain capabilities that allow us to ‘climb to the top’ in society – that this means that we are ‘better’ and that those who do not share these capabilities are ‘less’ and should be treated accordingly. From this, we have created a system of ‘fairness’, a system of ‘merit’ – where you are treated ‘as you deserve’. We look at what a person can do and want to distribute resources according to what one has done with their abilities, skills and talents. Within this, we do not realise that one’s abilities, skills and talents – are completely arbitrary.

They are arbitrary in two ways:
In the first place they are arbitrary because one just happened to be born with a natural ‘knack’ or ‘gift’ for a particular point in reality. You may have been born with a ‘feel for music’, but you may as well have been born having a gift for building things or putting things together. This feel for music could have given you the possibility of becoming a wealthy music produce, while having your building skills may have led you to being a carpenter who barely gets by. So, given that we may naturally be good at things which differ from person to person – placing all one’s value into this limited point leads to two human beings living and experiencing a great difference in Living Standards, as the direct result of how we value different people due to their skillset, more over others.

Secondly they are arbitrary, because our skills, abilities and talents are closely linked to our environment. If you are born in a wealthy family, you have the resources available to develop, practice and perfect your skills. Very likely, you will be given a head start in society through your connections that place you in a profitable position. You could have been born with the exact same skillset, abilities and talents in a whole different environment. You could have been born in a family where resources were scarce – so scarce in fact, that your mother is unable to feed you adequately, stunting your growth and limiting your ability to live. So scarce, that by the age of six – your mother is crying over your lifeless body.

The same way, with the necessary resources available, everyone can be taught to be effective human beings – but this unfortunately, this is not happening because resources are currently not made available for everyone – only for those who can ‘afford’ it, those who apparently ‘deserve’ it.

So you see, measuring one’s Equality and within that measuring one’s Value based on a human’s skillset and abilities – is completely irrational and does not make any sense at all. The only common sensical thing to do – is to treat and value each one Equally on the premise of Life – within the realisation that I could have easily been you, and you could have easily been me. This means that if I want to able to live a dignified life, that you should be able to do this to – because after all, I could have been living my life in your shoes.

To be continued

Related articles

• 359. Equal Life Rights
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 358.Human Rights and Equal Money
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• 363. Housing is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 360. Humanitarianism and Equal Money

Read More

Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System

Prevention is the Best Cure

Decision-making within an Equal Money System will adhere to the Constitutional Principle of ‘Prevention is the Best Cure’. This implies that with every decision made, all possible ramifications, consequences and outflows must be considered in order to design the policies and regulations in a way that do not cause unnecessary harm to the current or future generations of plants, animals and humans.

The moment disharmony exists, it indicates that the point of disharmony was not adequately prevented. Becoming aware of such a point of disharmony places us in a reactive mode. A reactive mode always takes place after the harm as a result of disharmony that has already occurred, and thus, it is in essence ‘too late’ as the harm cannot be undone. To design a regulatory political system based on reactive measures is therefore unacceptable, as it implies that we wait for harm to take place before action is taken. Currently, policy and regulations are mostly based on the interest of select groups. This causes harm to manifest on other levels that were not included in the equation, causing us to continuously be in a reactive mode as we attempt to correct the mistakes of our past. This is why it is so important to always design policies and regulations according to the Principle of What is Best for All, as it will enable us to prevent disharmony before it occurs.

Obviously, taking action before harm takes place also reduces the amount of resources that go into correcting mistakes and dealing with the consequences of carelessness. A simple example is nutrition. There are countless ills that are currently caused through inadequate nutrition, among which are diabetes, heart conditions, cancer, impaired cognitive functions such as memory capacity, and so on. Treatment for such ills requires a whole range of resources and is time-intensive. If the source is corrected, which is the diet, the ills are prevented as well as the need to use up resources for their treatment.

Initially, policy making will still largely involve correcting the mistakes of our past, as there were many, and thus many consequences. However, as we progress as a global society within the ability to prevent disharmony and to direct all matters in a harmonious way, we will be able to bring children in the world knowing that we’ve taken all preventative measures to allow them to live a life without harm. And thus, the principle of fear as it is now part of society will have been addressed and will no longer form part of our co-existence.

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law
• Day 157: Growing your Own Food and Equal Money
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System

Read More