Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5

This blog-post is a continuation to:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

In the Previous blog-post we discussed the Principle of Merits and Deserts as a basis for just distribution of resources. It became clear that to distribute goods and services based on 'who deserves them' is a more complicated matter than it may initially seem to be. There are different definitions to the word 'merit' or different conditions under which it could be applicable and it is not clear which is preferrable. As such, there is also no way of measuring merit in an objective way.

Furthermore, the implications of distributing goods and services based on merit must be understood. Distributing goods and services is not a matter of distributing 'prizes' after a match. Everything a person requires to live in this world is either a good or a service. Therefore, can we really make such things as whether or not a person has a lifeline, dependent on a game of 'see who's better than who'? Do we need to deserve to stay alive? Currently this is implied in our economic system. I know we've all been taken in by the 'Survival of the Fittest' Theory and regardless of the debate on its validity - do we really want this to be who we are? That we let people die because apparently in some way it has been 'assessed' that they weren't worthy of life, that they didn't deserve to live?

We were all born onto this planet, we are all alive - where does it state that we now also have to deserve to be alive? Because - that is what we literally do by participating in this economic system and going to work: trying to 'earn our living'. Isn't that an absurd idea?

We grow up as a child, some of us in the illusion of being able to play all day and have fun, still ignorant about the 'complicated stuff' of the 'grown-up world' - where we still believe in magic, because we don't see how it's a problem that something just pops up out of nothing and that there must be a trick behind it - where we trust what others tell us because we don't see a reason why we wouldn't - to then some day wake up in a world of competition and struggle, where you're now told: This world is a scary place! You better prepare yourself because otherwise you won't make it! You can't pay the rent, get out! You can't afford that, put it back! Didn't anyone ever teach you that in this world it's every man for himself! Toughen up!

Obviously - if you hear these words by the time you're a teenager, you're lucky, you still had a pretty good life - there are children out there who are exposed to the cruelties of the world from as early as they can remember.  What do we say to them? Sorry, you just don't deserve any better? What apparent superpower decided that the world has to be this way that we now apparently all have to continue living our life in service of it?

In the next part of this series we discuss the Principle of Need as a basis for distribution.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More

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