Social and Economic Justice: What Choice - Essay Example

Social and Economic Justice: What Choice? Conceptions of what gives s power have been argued back and forth since the birth of s. At the heart of the argument lies the struggle between how much power the state should have versus how much power should remain in the hands of individuals. This is at the heart of the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism. As philosophers, Irving Kristol and John Rawls both contributed to the realm of political philosophy, though they both had differing views of social justice. To state the differences succinctly, Kristol believes that capitalism in essence can be neither egalitarian nor authoritative, while Rawls felt that capitalism could afford basic rights and liberties to all while still allowing people to pursue their own desires. As these are contradictory viewpoint, they both cannot be correct. It is my position that Rawls’ theory is idealistic and doesn’t have much in common with the society in which we actually live, and that Kristol’s theory stands as the stronger of the two. Rawls’ basic conception of social justice is dependent upon two claims: 1) that people should have the most amount of personal liberty possible that is compatible with others’ and 2) that it is possible to arrange inequalities in regards to social and economic status so that can be to the advantages of all. Rawls’ position is an extrapolation of the idea of the social contract; the social contract is the idea that people enter into an agreement with each other and form a system by which they all agree to be governed. How Rawls’ idea differs is that he views justice as the that which is the product of the agreement, as opposed to a particular form of government. To differentiate his conception with previous ideas, he refers to his idea as ‘justice as fairness.’ Rawls feels that his two basic principles would be agreed upon by rational people. He feels that people, in order for his conception of social justice to work, must not be aware of their own individual assets, as far as natural abilities, dispositions, place in society, etc. This is where his idea of the ‘veil of ignorance’ comes in; the veil of ignorance makes everybody fair and equal, as there would be no way for a person to create an advantage over another through their own personal abilities. This would be most desirable because it would be the most fair, and any rational person would agree to enter into this sort of arrangement. In theory, this plan might sound ideal, but the problem is that there is no real life way to apply the veil of ignorance, let alone if people were actually willing to follow along with this idea. The main problem that Rawls’ theory comes from his conception of inequalities being distributed so that they may still be to the benefit of all. He states that there is no inherent inequality for one person to have, for example, a financial advantage over another person under the condition that this financial advantage then becomes an advantage for the less advantaged person. To give this a real life counterpart, it is not immoral for a person to be born into a family with a lot of money as long as that person starts a company and provides jobs for people that did not have the same advantage as the person with the money. The person with the money, by starting the company, has proven to be an advantage to all. What would be immoral would be if this person with the money kept it, lived off of it, and did not contribute anything meaningful to other people. In the same way people’s natural abilities would also serve to be a benefit towards all people. The problem with this is that it is unrealistic. Take for example the person with the money. This person has created a company, and it does benefit other people by providing jobs, but at the same time these people will never be able to rise to the same position as the person starting the company. Rather, it keeps them in their same position. This in turn is a further advantage to the person with the money; the person with the money will not be compensating the people working in the company to a level where they will rise to the level with the company owner. This in turn ensures that he will always be keeping his advantage while at the same time making sure that the people in the company are always dependent upon his ability to give them a job. In this way the advantaged stay as the advantaged and perpetuate their own advantage over the people less fortunate. Thus the society become class-structured and the idea of certain individuals having an advantage that benefit’s the society as a whole is nullified. Kristol’s theory states that social justice and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism, at its most fundamental level, is not and can never be an egalitarian system, which he claims social justice is egalitarian in nature. This is because, under capitalism, those with the most inherent skill, luck, or talent or rewarded the most. It is not a system that spreads wealth out evenly; it is a system that encourages people to make the best of their own individual talents. Therefore, social justice has nothing to do with capitalism. Instead, capitalism is a system that works through economic justice. Economic justice is the system in which people are rewarded for their contributions to economy; the more people contribute, the more they will be rewarded, and the less a person contributes, the less the person will be rewarded. Economic justice states that people that have less deserve less, regardless of advantages and disadvantages that might exist between people. Capitalism is not a system that pretends to be about equality; rather, it concerns itself with opportunity. Social justice, however, is concerned with equality, though it doesn’t view opportunity as immoral. Instead, social justice doesn’t really have much of anything to say about opportunity. Capitalism needs for people to be unencumbered in order to take advantage of every opportunity that they come across. But with social justice, this states that a governing body needs to be able to step in and redistribute assets as it see fit in order to promote equality. Kristol is more concerned with the authoritarian nature of the term social justice, though. According to Kristol, the term social justice implies that the governing body necessarily must decide upon which aspects of society it must intervene in and re-allocate assets. If there is such a body that is to perform these tasks, then there would be no need for personal freedom, as this body would be making decisions as to what to do with their assets and outcomes of their opportunities. To Kristol, social justice nullifies freedom. Though Kristol states that social justice and capitalism are incompatible, he doesn’t find capitalism to a necessarily bad system. Though social justice isn’t possible, capitalism still has its own sense of justice. Even though capitalism states that everybody gains more, just in differing amounts, he is more realistic in his statements and realizes that through whatever circumstances, there are people that will lose, and these people need to be taken care of. Though I think Kristol fares better by being more realistic, I think the mistake that he makes is when he admits that some people fall under the wheels of capitalism and need help. Social justice and economic justice are merely hypothetical terms; there aren’t real life counterparts to these. In our country, rather, we have a combination of the two together, because there is opportunity for people to advance themselves, but at the same time there are safety nets. Rawls was simply too idealistic in his attempt to defend capitalism, but perhaps there really isn’t any need to defend it in the first place. Our government has programs set up that are supported by the population that help people when they need it; this does not completely nullify their freedom. They have chosen to have these programs set up. Social security is one of the most popular government programs ever. It is simply a matter of determining the balance between economic justice and social justice; we can’t rid ourselves completely of either of these without an entirely different system, which is not something most people seem to want. In the end, realistically, we have a combination of both economic and social justice in this country. Read More