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 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice

This blog post is a continuation to:

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Substantive Justice as part of Legal Justice has to do with the rules as laws are just or not. Here, what is specifically understood as 'just' is: are 'dues' specified in a just way. In other words - does the law specify who gets rewards and who gets punishment in a just way?

Obviously - this is again very concerning, because that would indicate that we have already as a society and as a humanity accepted that justice is maintained through handing out punishments and rewards. And where does this acceptance and allowance come from? From the time when we were children, where we were treated with this warped concept of 'Justice' by our parents. But why do parents punish and reward their children to, apparently, 'educate' them into becoming 'good people'? Do parents really try to assist the children in being the best and most honorable version of themselves - or are they actually just molding them in order to fit in in society and be able to survive in the current system? The current system where, if one has any actual consideration  for another, it will stand in your way of being successful - because to be successful requires of a person to not care of the consequences of one's actions in the current economic system.

Ultimately - why parents punish and reward is to encourage certain kinds of behavior and discourage other kinds of behavior. When a child throws a tantrum - the parent punishes to make the behavior stop. But does that assist the child? Does the child gain any understanding of the experience that they just went through? Obviously not and the reason why this is not happening is because parents themselves don't understand where they own anger comes from, where there own thoughts come from and how they accumulate energy within themselves until the culmination point reaches the point of no longer being able to suppress it and then it all just comes out. Parents cannot educate their children, because they have not done this research for themselves and have not assisted themselves to work through these experiences. And they never have because no-one ever assisted or educated them to be able to do this. And so the cycle has always continued - where children, generation after generation, are being controlled through manipulation as punishment and reward - learning to suppress what the parents have labelled as 'bad' and trying to present what the parents have labelled as 'good'. But no actual change takes place -the child is the same child, but has just learned how to blend in in order to avoid punishment and attract reward. So - the child is not a more honorable child because it has now been conditioned to act a certain way. Being an honorable person, a person with integrity, is not a consequence of conditioning, it is a consequence of consideration and understanding. So long as those points are not present, then we cannot speak of honor or integrity.

And the same principle is being applied in the Justice system - showing that the justice system still hasn't grasped the concept of Justice. A just society - is that a society in which human beings have been conditioned to tolerate each other to the highest degree possible - or is it a society in which each human has actual and real consideration for each other human? Those are two entirely different societies - so why are we settling for the one where Justice is but a mirage, an illusion, a projection and a farce?

For real justice to take place, any behavior that causes harm in a society should be addressed in the form of having the abuser go through a process of education and self-introspection, assisted by professional psychologists, to trace back the origin of their behaviors and being shown how this behavior can be corrected. I mean - how else are we expecting to change our society if we do not address the origin of the behavior that we see as problematic. Trying to 'keep a lid' on things is part of why outbursts take place - and so, our educational paradigm that forms the basis of our justice system is a very big part of the problem we face today, where crime is soaring, where people can barely tolerate each other, where hate speech runs rampant, where bickering is a daily sport, where wars of all kinds are so common that we've numbed ourselves to the news coverage images.

The very fact that the word 'Substantive' as in 'Substantive Justice' is used to denote the practice of punishing and rewarding as a means of managing and controlling human behavior already shows a contradictio in terminis.  Because nothing substantial is going on within it - in fact, it's all about upholding a make-belief idea of justice - a justice that does not actually care about creating the just society, a society of integrity and honor in each living being towards themselves and every other being - but a justice that protects the interests of the few - those who can afford them being protected.

To substantially change the fabric of society, we require to first pay attention to the substance of ourselves. To continue utilizing 'human nature' for the existence of system of control is unacceptable. We can change our nature, we can change our substance, and so - change our society to one that doesn't require us to use the carrot and the stick approach. We claim to be so great, to have created 'civilization', to push for scientific progress, to place a man on the moon - but when it comes to our own nature -the one thing that we are truly responsible for - we're suddenly incapable of changing it, too limited to put our own affairs in order? How can that be rationalized?

Related articles

• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 389: The Policeman in the Head that Raises our Children
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Dag 113: A Family Tree of Judgments
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money

Read More

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

Within this Blog I will be exploring different concepts of Justice and investigate what Justice would be in the context of upholding Constitutional Equality as What is Best for All in an Equal Money Capitalistic system. This will probably turn out to be a series rather than one blog-post. So - walk with me.

The word 'Justice' has been applied in different contexts, which can be laid out as follows:

1. Legal Justice
    a. Procedural Justice
    b. Substantive Justice
2. Moral Justice
    a. Distributive/Social Justice
        I. Justice as Entitlement
        II. Justice as Fairness

Legal Justice vs. Moral Justice

Legal justice refers to adherence to the law as a set of rules that determines part of how humans are to behave towards each other and towards the environment. Legal justice, then, as to do with the content of these laws as well as how these rules are established, applied and enforced.

Moral justice has to do with moral values of what is fair, right and correct. Moral justice then has to to with prescribing how humans ought to interact with each other and who ought to get what.

Looking at the relationship between moral justice and legal justice - it is obvious that legal justice attempts to specify moral justice in relation to specific circumstances and situations - where legal justice is the 'concretization' of moral justice. Now, what is fascinating - is that 'moral justice' is often seen as a 'fuzzy' concept, or having to do with 'fuzzy concepts' such as 'rightness' and 'goodness' - where it seems it is hard to define what those words actually entail - and yet, it is those words that serve as the basis for legal justice - where legal justice - where legal justice is the justice that is applied unto a population and is supposed to yield just results - and where it is trusted that this is what the legal system intends to do. But if we are not clear on what moral justice exactly is - then how can we assess that the legal system is in fact just?

We have in all countries and even between countries a complex legal system in place - but when the question is asked: 'but what is morally just?' - then we have to scratch our heads and we refer to the law - saying that 'well, whatever the law says'. So - we're running in circles where we are attempting to establish just and good societies, where we all have an opinion about what rules should be in place, and where each one thinks their proposed rule is the right one - but where no-one has ever stopped to sit and discuss what 'rightness' is - and where the time has not been taken to come to a definition of 'justice' that all can agree on.

Many parts of the legal system are, for instance, determined by customary law - and all that means is that legal status has been given to customs and 'how things are usually done' - this ultimately proving that we cannot trust that the legal system in any way has the purpose of justice at heart - but rather attempts to merely control transactions, interactions and individual behavior.

To be continued.

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money
• 362. Water is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"
• Day 352: Occupy Wall Street and Zeitgeist: Can the 99% Count?
• 325. Public Good in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 292: The Dignity of Suicide vs The Shame of Poverty?
• 360. Humanitarianism and Equal Money
• 327. Collectivism in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Jury of One’s Peers?

A system of justice from the perspective of having to evaluate and assess what must happen when a person is in a mental disorder, and therefore disrupting society, through a Jury of One’s Peers, is not an effective procedure. The effectiveness of peer-review lies within the expertise and level of skill of those reviewing. A procedure through a Jury of One’s Peers based on a selection of citizens from a broad spectrum of backgrounds (race, nationality, gender, education) in no way whatsoever ensures the effective evaluation and assessment of a person’s disorder and decision of specific correctional facilitation. The only point such a jury of peers serves, is to provide a broad spectrum of bias through which a person’s behaviour resulting from mental disorder is assessed.

The assessment of a person’s behaviour ought to be based on a very simple pattern: is the pattern that one is living that which is Best for All Life or is it Not? As such, the legal system won’t be as much a system that is governing or regulating according to the laws that exist – as most of the laws will cease to exist in an Equal Money Justice System. The justice system will operate very simplistically. You will have your primary constitutional law and you will have your management regulations – which together form your guidelines according to how man co-exists in harmony.

At any time when behaviour deviates from the principles and guidelines to sustain harmony in society, one will go through a process of origin identification and correctional facilitation by experts.

The Less Laws, the Less Crime

“The more laws are written, the more criminals are produced” – Lao Tzu

The focus of Justice within an Equal Money System will not be that of criminalization, it will be a matter of harmony or disharmony. A harmonious society cannot create criminals, because crime as such does not exist, and can only be the result of the laws in place creating it. Laws dictate what is legal and what is illegal. In a society where regulations are formulated according to the principle of what is Best for All, there will be no reason to step ‘outside’ of the law. If ‘illegal’ behaviour does take place, it is not sufficient to merely label the behaviour as ‘criminal’ and attempt to ‘force’ the individual to comply with the law, or simply remove them from society. Instead, it requires to be re-assessed whether the regulations in place are indeed Best for All. If the disharmony is not a result of the existent regulations, the disharmony requires to be corrected on an individual level.

Therefore, there will be no criminals – criminals only exist as the result of a disharmonious society, where instead of looking at what is in the Best interest of All and assessing people’s behaviour within the principles of harmony or disharmony , laws are designed to protect certain interest groups and thus by implication excluding others

There will thus be only One Law, as the Rule of Law as the Constitution based on Equality and what is Best for All Life. All other guidelines will be in the form of policy and regulation, which will be required to be laid out within the utmost specificity. Within adhering to specificity and clarity to the utmost level, no space is left for the interpretation of law or policy. If at any stage it turns out that a door for interpretation was left open, this would indicate that the law or policy is not good enough and will have to be specified to close the gap. As such, there will no longer be a need for lawyers as ‘experts’ on law or courts for the purpose of interpreting the law. Education within the Equal Money System will provide everyone with the necessary reading skills to be able to effectively read and assess laws and policies for one self – at the level that it should be assessed, so all can be on an equal ground of understanding and clarity.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Justice

www.equalmoney.org 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

Read More

Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System

Identifying the Source of Disharmony for Correctional Action

Within an Equal Money System the meaning of justice stands within the context of the maintenance of harmony within society. Therefore, injustice will entail the correction of points of disharmony. Whenever an individual or group of individuals is living in disharmony, and thus, will cause disruption and harm within society - an assessment will be done in terms of the origin of the disharmony.

If the disharmony is caused by inefficient management guidelines or institutional structures, then this inefficiency requires to be addressed on managerial or institutional level to correct the disharmony. Because in such event, the disruptive behavior of the individual or group of individuals is a reaction to a disharmonious environment - and thus, in removing the cause of the disharmony, the behavior will be corrected.

If the disharmony originates within the individual, it will be assessed whether the behavior is deliberate and a form of spite, or whether the condition is medical.
In the event that the origin is deliberate spitefulness by the individual, a social intervention will take place by experts. Because - understand that the moment one causes disharmony within society, one is in breach of the basic constitution - and therefore, one will no longer have the protection of the constitution, because one is breaking it. And, thus, from a certain perspective, one is breaking the law. However, the issue is not that one is breaking a law, but that one is breaking the harmony of co-existence - which means one is causing harm and such harm mus tbe prevented. Therefore, experts with the necessary level of skills to be able to assist, will take action through taking the individual through a process of re-education.
In the event that the condition is medical, where the dysfunctional behavior is caused by a chemical imbalance within the human, the correctional intervention will be centered around re-establishing the harmony within the physical make-up of the individual.

Correctional Facilitation

Within the current system we speak of 'correctional facilities', but what is actually being referred to is a building where we can lock-up criminals who now have to 'serve time' as payment for their mistakes. Thus - the term 'correctional facilities' is inappropriate as not enough - if any - emphasis is placed upon the actual correction of the disharmonious behavior.

Within an Equal Money System, disharmony will be addressed through facilitating correction in every possible way - which is what correctional facilities are supposed to be about. The focus will therefore not be upon punishment and revenge - as these actions in no way facilitate actual understanding, which is necessary to effectively correct the disharmony. As such, these measures only take into consideration those who were on the receiving end of the harm caused by the disharmony through making them feel 'safe', remunerating them for losses experienced or giving them a sense of satisfaction through vengeance. Obviously, this implies that the way the justice system currently works does not consider what is Best for All, as the well-being of the individual in disharmony is not equally considered. The justice system requires to address points of harm and disharmony in a way that is sustainable and actually aids the society as a whole. Punishment and revenge are merely quick-fixes to temporarily resolve a point of conflict, but don't ensure the prevention of further harm. 

Related articles

• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

Read More