Critically Analyse the Role and Value of 'the Community in Global Justice Theory - Essay Example

Critically analyse the role and value of the community’ in global justice theory. How can a global community for global social justice be achieved ina world of nation-states? Name Tutor Institution Subject code Date of submission Abstract The paper looks at social justice from a global context with initial thorough understanding of the term through definition. An understanding of the relationship of social justice with the civil rights movement will be sought after which the various theories and concepts surrounding social justice examined. The paper also looks at the role of community with regards to global social justice in the context of the theories and concepts to arrive at an acceptable conclusion. A modern example of how the world has rallied for social good is used to put the input of the global community in the topic under discussion into perspective. An example of “the invisible children”, an organization that produced the “Kony 2012” film that recently went viral for social good is used in this case. Introduction Social justice, is defined as the fair and appropriate implementation of laws in line with the natural law to all people regardless of their ethnicity, gender, wealth status, race, religious beliefs, political affiliations and so on with equality and without discrimination. Social justice begins with the acquisition of civil rights, defined as the privileges associated with citizenship of a particular country. These include the right to freedom, proper governance, justice and fairness in the implementation of the laws of the land together with human and natural rights like the privilege to hold public office subject to an individual’s conduct (Kuper, 2000)1. From the definition, social justice begins at the local community level to the level of a country before going global. Global social justice cannot therefore be achieved if individual countries have not created room for its actualization. A deeper meaning of global social justice To have an in-depth understanding of global social justice, the following four areas must be properly explained; equal citizenship, entitlement to a social minimum, equality of opportunities and fair distribution of resources. With a proper appreciation of these issues, the social justice in a global context will be clearly realised. According to Simon Maxwell (2008)2, in his publication to the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the above four areas have the following meaning: Equal citizenship. This is not just being a resident of a particular nation and earning a living within the confines of the country’s borders, but has a much wider requisite of freedom, equality and solidarity expressed by citizens of a country and by an extension the world. The voice of a citizen must be heard and they should be in a position to hold public institutions accountable to be considered full beneficiaries of social justice. Guarantee of social minimum. This has the implication of investments in social protection to ensure that all the civil liberties so achieved are not ceded but instead expanded to cover areas that are yet to experience social justice. It therefore requires vigilance on the part of citizens to ensure that all achievements with regards social justice are properly safeguarded from malicious interest groups seeking to steal any gains from a country’s citizens. Equality of opportunities This deals with the chance to reap the benefits of economic, social and cultural gains. Members of a country or society must have equal access to gains opportunities to education, health and fair administration of justice with the option of holding anyone attempting to deny these opportunities to account. A society that avails equal chances to its members is therefore considered to have provided social justice to its constituents. Fair distribution The social justice agenda if facing problems thanks to the issue of distribution. This is one topic rarely discussed in most circles because it touches on the elite. America is considered on the nations that have made major steps in achieving social justice with the pertinent issues that gave birth to the civil rights movement in the 1960s having been resolved with the exception of fair distribution. Statistics reveal that only 1% of Americans live in comfort and literally owns most wealth with the balance of 99% facing extreme hardships thanks to tax laws made to the benefit of the elite. However controversial, fair distribution of resources through proper laws is the pillar to social justice, and unless comprehensively addressed, social justice will only be realized through a revolution. Social Justice and the civil rights movement Having understood the in-depth meaning and scope of social justice, it’s important to review how much progress the world has made with regards to the issue to facilitate an audit of the areas that are yet to be tackled. The civil rights movement in America was founded on the basis of the need for social reforms that had seen the oppression of members of the African American community and women. Thanks to the activities of the movement, the two groups acquired the right to vote and hold public offices that had earlier been reserved for male members of the Caucasian community. The significance if this understanding is that it enables the worlds to understand just how much progress has been made over the last 50 years and what could be achieved over the coming few years if the spirit of the 1960s in revived. If in a span of less than 50 years, there has been so much change that the president of the united states is African American when 50 years ago, he could not be given the chance to vote, then how much progress with regards can the world make in half the period from today? This is the question that should be on every global citizen’s mind. Thanks to the civil rights movement, the racial divide has been bridged and most of the issues discussed above achieved not only in America but the whole world. Theories and concepts of global social justice John Bordley Rawls, a leading American philosopher came up several theories and concepts, to explain, guide and provide proper understanding of social justice, these include: The general conception concept This concept states that all social basic goods of freedom and opportunities, wealth and the foundations for self respect are distributed fairly unless an unfair distribution of the goods is in favor of the least fortunate (Goodin, 1988)3. The theory of Utilitarianism This theory states that a society is to the extent that its legislations and institutions foster the grand total or average delight of its members. The challenge however, is determining the aggregate or overall happiness because unlike temperature and weight, happiness is not easily quantifiable. To overcome this quantification challenge, Utilitarians use indirect measures with the help of a theory on human good that defines what is regarded as good for humans and the necessities for them to thrive. A set of social conditions and the kind of organizations required for the realization of the said good is also outlined in this theory. Even with this general understanding on what is good, people will never agree on what is regarded as the most desirable life, each person has their own definition and understanding of a happy satisfying life and what is satisfying to a politician may not be the case for a soldier. In the midst of these disagreements, all is not lost because there is a consensus on the bare minimum of basic needs that must be fulfilled in whatever life one considers desirable. These needs, according to James Sterba (1995)4, must be met to avoid any serious danger to and individual’s physical and mental being. A basic need minimum id therefore the least required for any human being to meet his or her essential needs and these needs are universal. To further build this common ground among the human race with regards to social minimum, it may be necessary to borrow from Aristotle. The great philosopher who clarifies that we are rational beings and that the human life is a rational bustle where we live by making choices founded on reasons and then act on the ground of these choices made. He then crowns the entire choice debate by stating that people decide what to do through the art of reasoning which translates into choice. These choices are governed by beliefs and needs provided one is rational. It therefore implies that the human race is a consumer of rationality. If what Aristotle talks about is right, then the minimum basic needs for each person on earth is a precondition to any life one desires and to achieve this desirable life, people must have the freedom to determine their own ends and have the means , opportunities and realistic chances to achieving these ends in a socially just society. Relationship between Aristotle’s ideologies and Utilitarianism As Utiliatrians reasonably claim to be making effort at the promotion of total happiness of members of a society, in their attempts to make improvements of issues of rate of employment, wealth distribution, level of education and so on, then it should be clearly understood that the reason for harbouring the thought that these issues are of relevance is because the areas they seek to improve measure the amount and distribution of the opportunities through which members of a society get to achieve their diverse conception of a desirable life. Renowned Utilitarians like John Stuart Mill argued that freedom both political and economic were part of what makes happiness. He further made an argument that democracy and essential political freedom of speech and assembly, worship were the pillars to happiness of rational end choosers, just much in the same way like Aristotle because without these, the rational end chooser would not effectively pursue their own conception of a life of satisfaction. He also clarified that wealth is at the centre of having a realistic chance to the desired life. In view of this, a just society according to Utilitarainism should have institutions, government, laws and an economy to facilitate as many people as possible with the chance to achieve the desirable life that they so choose. According to this theory, a reform of institutions in such a society towards this goal is in pursuit of a grand justice. Utilitarians have championed for the following institutions in their quest to achieve a socially just society: A public system of education for all members and funded by public resources from taxes. Protection of all the liberties guaranteed in the United States constitution under the Bill of Rights. Democratic models of government Competitive free market with elements of regulation Rawlss Theory of Justice as Fairness Under this theory, Rawls refutes the Utilitarian ways and brings a hypothetical model of a situation where individuals have to make a choice between fundamental principles by which essential institutions of their society are to be organised and evaluated. He argues that in such hypothetical situations under which choice of doctrines is to be made; only fair and just principles are selected. He adds that this is so, thanks to the hypothetical conditions imposed on the situation of the choosers. In such circumstances, people would choose the following combination of principles: The Equal Liberty and The Difference Principles (Rawls, 1971)5. The first principles provides that each person should have optimal civil liberties that are well-matched with similar liberties for all while in the second principle, inequalities are acceptable if the principles can anticipated to work to everyone’s advantage especially the poor and if the opportunities and roles to which inequalities connect are available to everyone under the circumstances of fair equality and chance. Rawls calls the hypothetical situation as the Original Position (OP). In this position, people are required to be in a somewhat uncharacteristic state that is never achieved in reality. There is an imagination that people in this position have a much simpler motivation than the ordinary being and are equally not knowledgeable on issues about themselves that no rational being could be ignorant of. For this there is an assumption that these individuals are more interested in motivation without knowledge of their own unique interests. These individuals are assumed to have knowledge that the choices they have to make are fundamental principles of organizations essential to their societal institutions and with eminent risks associated with their choice, they are further assumed to adopt caution in making the choice among the available alternative. Their rule of choice is often the maximum rule and according to this rule, one should go for an alternative whose possible outcome will be lighter than the same outcome for any other alternative. In as much as this is relevant, the conditions here are purely hypothetical that no one could therefore meet them. The argument fronted by Rawls does not require anyone to make choices under such conditions but only serves to allow us tell what choice we would make if we were subjected to such conditions (Rawls, 2008)6. Below are the five conditions that jointly define the OP: 1. Those in the OP are self interested in motivation 2. They however have no idea of what their unique interests are, that is, they are unaware of their inclinations, plans in life, skills positions-both social and economic and even gender. They are therefore under the veil of ignorance. 3. They do not know the general and social life of the human race, 4. They however know that the choices they have to make are the fundamental principle with which essential institutions of the society they live in are to be organised. 5. They have to use the alternative principle with the help of the rule of maxim Rawls argument on Equal Liberty and Difference Principles Chosen in the OP According to Rawls, there are liberties that each one would want respected by whatever forms of institutions the society adopts. Each member of the society, irrespective of their specific interests and abilities would want to see the respect of these rights. These rights include the freedom of speech, thought, assembly, worship and the protection from physical and psychological coercion as well the freedom of movement (Beitz, 2000)7. A socially just society must therefore guarantee these rights to its members. Basic property rights to use personal property exclusively fall under this. The theory of Libertarianism This is a social justice theory that reinforces the fundamental rights of citizens as enshrined in constitutions in modern democracies. It states that societies must protect the rights and privileges of every member in pursuing how to satisfy their needs. Human beings own themselves and have powers to decide how to get properties and other resources in a just society (Farrelly, 2004)8. Contrary to common perception that libertarianism gives everyone the absolute freedom to whatever they feel like, this theory says that people are free to engage in any economic activity that does not interfere with the rights of other members of the society. For instance, libertarianism theory does not support use of unlawful means to acquire wealth. The government’s role in this effort is ensuring that every citizen is protected from all risk factors that hinder their productivity. In totality, this theory stipulates that everyone has rights protecting them in pursuing their choices of activities that promote economic wellbeing. Many societies have no comprehensive property rights that protect everyone in the society; there are some biases against some individuals based on gender and other physical differences. For instance, some countries in the developing world have biases against women in property ownership and inheritance, these hinder drives that promote equity in participation in national development. Many social movements conducted by the authorities and nongovernmental organizations have increased awareness of these particular issues to the society which has transformed the old social order. This theory also outlines the two ways in which citizens acquire wealth: The transfer of ownership from one person to another or from one group to another; These are governed by contract laws which ensure every party in the transactions get a fair share from the deal. This process has to be crime proof and witnesses involved to make it a legitimate exchange. In societies with no strict financial system regulations, corrupt citizens take advantage of this laxity to bribe other people in authority to make illegal financial deals for instance, fraudulent land transfers. The second means of acquisition is when one gets full or partial ownership of a property with no previous ownership. This is a complex model especially in land ownership where there are cases of people claiming ownership because they have been using the resource. According to John Locke, a person can acquire a previously unoccupied land by starting to cultivate it. In this model, there is no formal transfer that happen but the person acquiring the property has an obligation to protect this property by getting the necessary documentation to avoid contestations that may arise later. The transfer period is a formal process that takes time; it has an implementation time frame that gives a moment of formal objection made by people who contest the property transfer. If all goes well, then the resulting owner has exclusive rights to use the property in whatever legal and profitable manner. This theory also covers the capitalists as it does not matter if this new ownership is equally distributed in the society; availability of means is what determines the level of property acquisition. In the same vein, there are some members of the society who might feel that wealth is concentrated in a few hands because of property acquisition which is not theoretically right (Buchanan, 2000)9. Libertarians hold on to the view that overall economic prosperity is achieved when everyone is given the freewill to engage in trade without undue influence from the government. These citizens are given the right to associate and form business alliances with whoever they feel like. The government is known as a bureaucrat that has several red tapes and requirements that hinder effective trade among persons and groups; this is believed to be the source of economic crimes such as corruption and money laundering prevalent in some business unfriendly countries. The physical barriers existing between countries should not deter economic exchanges among countries; those that open up their economies for foreign participation ends up realising substantial economic gains because investors have a bias towards a liberalised market. The role of community with regards to global social justice in the context of the theories and concepts Definition of social justice has moved from the basic provision of health, education and income to the public as stipulated in policy papers to a more comprehensive concept. There are modern day social transformations for instance, increasing public and stakeholder voice in management of private and public institutions (Scheffler, 2002)10. Members of the public also demand high levels of transparency and accountability which increases management efficiency and in turn increases shareholder wealth. Companies are increasingly adopting financial reporting initiatives whose standards are set by independent bodies to gauge its performance in the market. Mere outlining these regulations in financial sector legislation is not enough; the major responsibility lies in its implementation. Despite the presence of laws, many people in authority go against these laws because of low public participation in development. Members of the public are supposed to be watchdogs that monitor company and government activities to minimize misappropriation of resources. The convergence of world’s economies has created a global marketplace; the recent economic downturn in America caused ripple effects in other countries as economic systems are connected. There is a drive to enhance corporate governance in organizations that have international or merely local presence, to improve business performance. Strategic and retail investors look for companies with the best management practices where they feel their wealth is protected (Pogge, 2001)11. By opening up internal controls for public scrutiny, an organization is duty bound to faithful in manage shareholder’s wealth. The media also plays a vital role in informing members of the public about company and government operations. They expose bad management practices to the public who then increases their voice in demanding for change. This drive for change is witnessed in the social media that has created a forum where public opinions are represented. The media recently exposed harsh working conditions in Foxconn which resulted in a public pressure that eventually pushed the executives to reduce working hours and improve worker’s living conditions. The level to which this global community concept has been achieved with regards to social justice With the advent of social media and communication technologies that makes the world a global village, rallying people of diverse backgrounds around social goals has been easier than before (Nussbaum, (2008)12. Civil rights that were previously easily infringed are in the modern world easily exposed thanks to the new communication tools. A typical case of seeking social justice was recently witnessed in a visual documentary titles “Kony 2012” that was based on a rebel group in Uganda, East Africa that was terrorizing children and turning them into rebel soldiers and ruthless who would be forced to kill their parents. This act had gone for years and went unabated by the government of Uganda until a group of film makers going by “the name the invisible children” exposed the evil acts in the northern part of this African nation. When the documentary was uploaded on the internet, response from people around the world was overwhelming with 50 million views within one week. This viral effect of the documentary underscored the power of the global community in pushing for social justice and correcting wrongs done by people in power and governments. With the intervention of the film makers, legislators who had earlier declined to offer help to the Ugandan children were under pressure from the people and the United States agreed to send advisory soldiers to help in the hunt for the rebel, Kony. This very group managed to rally the world and raise funds to help provide social justice for the Ugandan children through the building of schools and health facilities and confirmed the theories discussed above. Conclusion Social justice cannot be achieved without the vigilance of members of the community. Those charged with the responsibility of administering social justice through political means always make attempts at depriving the people of their natural rights and without proper vigilance, there may never be any substantial form of justice in the world. With the power of communication that has made ordinary citizens media owners and reduced the dependence on institutionalized relaying of information, the world can get to learn of acts of injustices must faster and accurately to facilitate mobilization for the purpose of correcting such injustices. Bibliography Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995). Nussbaum, Martha (2008) ―Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism‖ in Thom Brooks, ed. (2008) The Global Justice Reader, London: Blackwell. Pogge, Thomas W. (2001) "Rawls on International Justice" Philosophical Quarterly 51 (203): 246-253. Rawls, John (2008) "The Law of Peoples", in Thom Brooks ed., The Global Justice Reader, London: Blackwell. Beitz, Charles (2000) ―Rawls‘s Law of Peoples‖ Ethics 110: 669-96. Buchanan, Allen (2000) ―Rawls‘s Law of Peoples: Rules for a Vanished Westphalian World‖ Ethics 110 (4): 697-721. Farrelly, Colin (2004) An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory, London: SAGE, ch. 5. Goodin, Robert E. (1988) ―What is so special about our fellow countrymen?‖ Ethics 98 (4): 663-686. Kuper, Andrew (2000) ―Rawlsian Global Justice: Beyond the Law of Peoples to a Cosmopolitan Law of Persons‖ Political Theory 28 (5) 640-674. Scheffler, Samuel (2002) Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), Chapters 3 & 7. Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/docs/1656.pdf Read More