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 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3

Continuing from: Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

Within this blog we will be looking at some of the interpretations of the concept ‘Equality of Opportunity’. The views on Equality of Opportunity can be broadly split up in two perspectives, one which is considered an ‘egalitarian’ view and looks at Equality of Opportunity as Equality of Starting Point – and another which is connected to a liberal point of view which sees Equality of Opportunity as Equality of Access.

When the topic of discussion is Equality of Opportunity, the term ‘opportunity’ is linked specifically to opportunity within the sense of education, job and career. Those who are more liberal believe that what is important is that everyone has ‘access’ to the same opportunities. This basically means that ‘the opportunity exists’, not per se that you will be able to make use of it. This view of Equality of Opportunity is defended on the basis of merit, talent, skill and effort – where there is an inherent belief existent that if you ‘work hard enough, you’ll be able to pursue your dreams’. According to this view, material conditions are not a deciding factor in whether or not someone will be able to make use of an opportunity. From their perspective, the egalitarian view of Equality of Opportunity as Equality if Starting Point is ineffective and inefficient.

Within the stance of Equality of Starting Point, material conditions are taken into consideration as important variables which will influence one’s success in pursuing a particular education/career. Not everyone comes from the same social background, and this may lead to some facing obstacles, hindering their path to achievement. To remove these obstacles, everyone should be given adequate material resource availability so that everyone can enjoy the same start and thus the same opportunities. But – because not everyone will use these opportunities in the same way (eg. One does not study sufficiently to pass one’s exams) – we still have a difference in outcome. This difference, is dubbed to be an ‘unequal’ outcome – and used as an argument by those who are pro-opportunity-of-access to dismiss the concept of Equality of Starting Point – as in the end, those who ‘deserve’ success based on effort, talent and skill – still reach success, while those who didn’t exercise effort, talent or skill will not reach their point of success. From their perspective, the establishment of an Equal Starting Point is just a waste of scarce resources while promoting ‘unequal outcome. The only way to have ‘real equality’ within a context of Equality of Starting Point, is apparently by forcing the same outcome on everyone – by either enabling those who are disadvantaged, or by disabling those who are advantaged (translation = ‘the industrious, ambitious and talented people’). Within following either method, it is believed that the more ambitious/able people are being disadvantaged for the sake of enabling the disadvantaged and is considered to be unfair. Whether it is through appropriating additional resources to the less advantaged (because apparently it means ‘taking it’ from the more advantaged), or directly, through medically and genetically disabling the more able (no joke, this actually comes up as an argument) – those who are in positions of advantage are being abused.

From the liberal side, there is also a strong belief present that human beings are not a product of their environment (which is one of the reasons why economic/material conditions are believed to not be relevant factors in the context of equality, freedom and opportunity). One’s ability to work hard and exhibition of particular talents is a ‘natural’ phenomenon, and is therefore a matter beyond morality or justice – as it merely ‘is’ and therefore cannot be fair or unfair.

It is these exact same beliefs that are in the end used to justify inequality within the world. We are unequal by nature – so this is by default ‘the just and right way’ – why bother to make equal that which was not equal in the first place? It’s just not ‘natural’.

So within this blog, we had a look at two different interpretations of Equality of Opportunity and had a look where each side is ‘coming from’. Within the next blog, we will be looking further into the justifications/beliefs used to defend inequality within the world, namely:

1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother
2. People are not a product of their environment
3. One’s genetic endowment as determining one’s position in society is beyond morality/justice

In the end, these beliefs/arguments are all just derivations of a single, essential belief – which is that we are not equal and thus it means that this is the way it should be – or alternatively: Equality is Unnatural.

Related articles

• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 213: Equal Pay Day Every Day with Equal Money

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 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 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

This blog-post is a continuation to
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights

Legal Justice - Procedural

As said in the blog 'Day 118: Justice and Human Rights', Legal Justice entails both procedural justice and substantive justice.

Procedural justice, otherwise known as formal justice, refers to the procedures that are followed when making rules. It has to do with how decisions are made, not what the decisions entail. Substantive justice, as the term indicates, has to do with the substance or content of the decisions.

Procedural justice is underpinned by two important principles:
1. That all members of the population are equal before the law and thus, that no discrimination may occur on any basis. This requires 'impartial judges' who will not allow bias within the decision-making process. We will get back to this subject at a later point in the discussion.
2. That all is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second principle partially shines a light on what society regards as being ' moral justice'. When a situation of harm occurs, what is done in our current legal system, is to pin-point the one party that is guilty for the harm caused. During trials - many factors and participants are often identified as possibly having contributed to the harm - but if there is no proof that this factor/participant is the origin of the harm - then there are no further consequences. This obviously raises concern - because it would mean that accountability and responsibility is a very limited concept in our current understanding - where we believe that we are only accountable and responsible for harm that actually took place as a result of our actions. But the truth is - we are responsible and accountable for any harm that COULD take place as a result of our actions. If during trial, many factors and participants are seen to have possibly contributed to the manifestation of harm - then why are these points not addressed, so that - even if in this particular case these factors/participants were not the cause of the harm - that the possibility of harm manifesting as a consequences of these factors/participants' behavior is ruled out?

Is justice only trying to find blame and claim reparation for damages that were suffered? Or does justice also entail the prevention of possible harm? We can ask if those participants whose behavior was identified to have possibly caused the harm (even though it happened to not be the so in the particular case) are equally responsible and accountable for the harm that took place. Because they equally allowed the possibility of this harm to take place. Is it not problematic that during trial we become aware of all kinds of possibly harmful factors - yet, ignore them, just because there has been no consequence of them yet? Do we need to wait for harm to actually occur before the word 'justice' becomes an issue?

To be continued.

Read More

Day 219: Equality and Human Rights

While Maite will be walking the Justice point as a blog-series, I will be walking the point of Equality at the same time within a series of blog-posts.

We’ll be investigating and walking the various dimensions from which people interpret the word Equality, and practically walk the process of establishing a definition and perspective on Equality which we can practically apply and live by within this world.

Some of the points will be looking at are:

• The ‘natural inequality of human beings’
• Equality as a Moral Ideal
• Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome
• Economic Equality
• Justifications for Inequality
• The ‘Problems of Equality’

Within walking and exploring these points we want to show how our current definition and understanding of Equality is contradictory and inadequate (and sometimes even plain preposterous) – and debunk some of the most common arguments that justify human inequality.

Where does this ‘Natural Inequality’ Story come from?

When we go way back in history, there is account of claims of natural human inequality as far back as the Classical Period. Both Plato and Artistotle stated that humans were naturally unequal, as well as being unequal in the functions or tasks that they perform (which is mostly what the claim of ‘inequality’ is founded on).

Since then, when people reflect on the concept of Equality, it is mostly done from the starting point of what characteristics we as human exhibit, and what functions we perform. From there, a connection is drawn that since we are different, we must be unequal. Note that within such a statement, an implicit assumption is made that equality and sameness is somehow closely related, especially in terms of “empirical” characteristics.

When we look at Equality and the relationship of Humans to the concept of Equality, in terms of what we ‘derive’ our Equality from, we are in essence making a value judgment. Back in the day, it is obvious within how Equality was viewed, that a value judgment was made which regarded one’s characteristics which would define one’s function in society as ‘important’, and used that variable as the baseline from which each one’s Equality was ‘measured’. Philosophers like Plato placed much value into ‘reason’ and ‘wisdom’ which enabled the philosopher to determine what is ‘good’ and ‘virtuous’, and were supposedly the ‘only ones who knew reality’. Within doing so, a distinction was made between ‘the people’ and ‘the philosophers’ which regarded philosophers as ‘more than’ a “normal” person, because their reasoning and insight were inadequate and incomplete. In modern times, this idea still sticks but can be translated into a more capitalistic notion where “those who are smart, ambitious and industrious are ‘more than’ those who aren’t”. Plato’s and Aristotle’s statements on Human Equality were never really questioned, and to this day – the same reasoning is still being applied to justify unequal treatment of Human Beings, and any other Life Form for that matter.


A statement was made that because ‘we exhibit differences, we must be unequal’ – and everyone just went with it.

Within the next blog we’ll be questioning this statement and explore where our Equality comes from, if it does not lie within the capacities we exhibit – then what or where do we derive our Equality from?

Stay tuned!

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 364: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part Two)
• Day 365: Is God a Fundamental Human Right?
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"

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