PART III.

FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR MORAL

DISPOSITION FRAMEWORKS

A. Virtue Ethics

1. Aristotle

a. Aristotle and the concept of Telos

In terms of his ethics Aristotle believed in the excellence of philosophical

contemplation and virtuous actions stemming from virtuous persons (i.e. virtuous
actions are what the person with wisdom would choose because what is good is
obvious to such a person). In terms of the material world he believed that organisms
continually moved from imperfect to perfect states in a teleological development, the
perfect being innate within the imperfect (e.g. a seed becomes a plant, an embryo
becomes a baby which becomes an adult). Thus the essence of something is found
in the form into which it has grown (its potential has become actualized which leads
to higher forms (Evolution?). Thus, 'What determined a thing's nature was what
counted as its successful operation: its achieving what is good for it to achieve'
(Honerdich p. 56). Humans are organized to live a certain way and the rest of their
nature is so organized as to be able to achieve this goal.

'... every substance not only possess a form; one could say it is also possessed by
a form, for it naturally strives to realize its inherent form. It strives to become a perfect
specimen of its kind. Every substance seeks to actualize what it is potentially.'
(Tarnas p.58)

In this way Aristotle believed the essential nature of things lay not at their cause (or
beginning) but at their end (telos).
b. Habit And Virtue In The Nicomachean Ethics:

Aristotle opens his discussion of virtue in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics with the
observation that, while intellectual virtue primarily originates in teaching, "moral virtue
comes about as a result of habit" (NE II:1, 1103a). The causal connection between good
habits and virtue is made in two distinct ways.

First, virtues are states of character, rather than passions or faculties, and states of
character are created only through a process of habituation. Second, virtue requires
consistently good choices and a choosing of the action for its own sake. Because good
habits give rise to consistent patterns of action and mold the passions to feel pleasure
and pain rightly, they are instrumental in meeting these requirements of virtue. Thus the
formation of habits -- good habits -- is essential to the Aristotelian good life at which virtue
aims. As Aristotle commented, "it makes no small difference, then, whether we form
habits of one kind or another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or
rather all the difference" (NE II:1, 1103b).

(i) Virtues as states of character acquired by habituation

In making his initial connection between virtue and habit, Aristotle makes extensive use
of the intermediary concept of "states of character." Aristotle defines virtue as "a state of
character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being
determined by a rational principle". These states of character "arise out of like activities,"
i.e. out of habitually acting one way rather than another.

Our virtues must be states of character for Aristotle because they cannot be said to be
either passion or faculties. We are not praised or blamed for our passions, because they
do not involve choice, or for our faculties, because they exist within us by nature. Virtues,
on the other hand, "are modes of choice or involve choice".

Aristotle notes that while "in respect of the passions we are said to be moved," where
virtues and vices are concerned, we are "disposed in a particular way". Aristotle arrives
at the conclusion that virtues must be states of character by a process of elimination;
virtues are not passions or faculties, so they must be states of character.

(ii) Virtues as chosen for its own sake through the passions

The second primary link between virtue and habit is found in Aristotle's presupposition
that the good man must choose virtuous action for its own sake. A man who was drawn
towards vice, but always acted rightly, even though it pained him, is not at all virtuous in
the Aristotelian sense. The virtuous man must feel pleasure in virtuous action and pain in
vicious action, such that his passions naturally draw him towards virtue and away from
vice. Habits allow us to train our passions in the right way, so that we do choose virtue
for its own sake and recoil away from vice.
Aristotle's account of habit, then, is firmly intertwined with his vision of virtue. Not only do
habits give rise to consistently virtuous action, by regularizing patterns of behavior, but
they also properly order our passions, so that we may choose virtue for its own sake.

Three Elements Of Habit:

In the previous chapter, three distinct elements of Nietzschean instincts were examined -
- their origin, the process by which they are created, and resulting action.

For Aristotle, moral habits need not be self-created; they can just as well originate in youth
or legislation as from within the individual. The process by which habits are created is not
clearly specified, although he does liken that process to learning other skills, such as lyre-
playing, in that both require actual practice at the actions themselves..

(i) Origin of habits

For Aristotle, a certain set of good habits must be formed in youth, long before such habits
could actually be consciously chosen. In a discussion of the beneficiaries of an inquiry
into the good life, he writes, "any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about what
is noble and just and, generally, about the subjects of political science must have been
brought up in good habits".

Virtue, then, is to a certain extent dependent upon things outside an individual's sphere
of choice, such as the virtue possessed by his parents.

As an empirical matter, it is true that virtue later in life requires, in almost all cases, a
decent moral upbringing. Nevertheless, from a normative perspective, our moral
dispositions, when self-created, give us a greater degree of control over our lives. By
holding an ideal of consciously created moral dispositions, such that those dispositions
give us, not others, greater control over our actions, we are better able to live our own
lives and to take responsibility for our choices.

(ii) The process of creating habits

One interpretation of the process by which habits are created and thereby lead to virtue
is that habitually acting just or brave, before one's character is actually just or brave is like
performing warm-up exercises on the muscles before a workout; habit, like the warm-up,
"softens up initial resistance" (Broadie 108).

These interpretations of the process of habituation allow us to extend and make more
sense of Aristotle's analogy between habit and acquiring physical skills, such a building
or lyre-playing. The development of the skills of moral decision-making through habitual
action is like learning to be sensitive to being in key when singing or to learning how much
mortar ought to be used in building a brick wall. By repeatedly singing and checking our
tone against a piano, we develop our own inner ear, such that we slowly become better
judges of whether we have gone flat or sharp without the aid of a piano. In building a brick
wall, through practice, we get an an eye for how much mortar is the right amount, so that
it feels as if we could perceptually see "the right amount." All of these small skills are
gained through repetition and by comparing our results to external standards (such as a
piano, a master builder, or the man of practical wisdom); by developing them, we acquire
a capacity for singing, building, or virtue which we did not previously possess.

(iii) The action produced by habits

The third element of habit -- the results in action which the process of habituation brings
-- is very clear in the Nicomachean Ethics. The final end for humans is happiness, which
is found by fulfilling the characteristic function of man. That characteristic function of man
is "a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational
principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of theseÉ
in accordance with the appropriate excellence" (NE I:8, 1098a). Thus "human good turns
out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue" (NE I:8, 1098a). Good habits are
a necessary element of the virtuous individual, such that good or bad habits help
determine whether a life is, in the end, a happy one or not.

In addition, well-formed habits will allow us to take pleasure in virtue and feel pain in vice,
such that we are easily and naturally impelled towards virtuous action and away from
vicious action. Sherman even extends this basic idea by asking whether "pleasure [can]
attach to a broader notion of development, in particular one which includes the acquisition
and habituation of states, such as virtue." In that case, "pleasure would arise not only
from the exercise of developed capacities and states upon appropriate objects, but from
the activity or practice which constitutes their development" (Sherman 186). Thus, the
pleasure gained from moral growth would serve as an impetus to further moral
development.

c. Aristotle's Definition of Happiness

"Happiness depends on ourselves." More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines

happiness as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result he devotes
more space to the topic of happiness than any thinker prior to the modern era. Living
during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some
similar conclusions. That is, happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, though his
virtues are somewhat more individualistic than the essentially social virtues of the
Confucians. Yet as we shall see, Aristotle was convinced that a genuinely happy life
required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental
well-being. In this way he introduced the idea of a science of happiness in the classical
sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge.

2. St. Tomas: Natural Law

a. Natural Law and Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225—1274) returns to the view that natural law is an independent
reality within a system of human reason approaching (but never fully comprehending)
God’s eternal law (and thus needing supplementation by God’s divine law).

Natural Law in Summa Theologica

In Summa Theologica, Aquinas identifies four types of law: (1) eternal; (2) natural; (3)
human; and (4) divine.

The eternal law is the ideal type and order of the universe (kosmos) pre-existing in the
mind of God (Logos).

The natural law is “the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”
"It is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from
its being imprinted on them... Wherefore it (human nature) has a share of the Eternal
Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this
participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law."

The human law refers to “the more particular determinations of certain matters devised
by human reason.”

The divine law refers to Special Revelation -- the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments. This law was necessary for four reasons: (1) humans
need explicit divine guidance on how to perform proper acts; (2) uncertainty of human
judgment needs a check; (3) humans need divine insight on issues on which they are not
competent to judge; and (4) it proves that God will punish some deeds that even go
beyond the ability of human law to punish.
b. The pursuit of happiness-Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) is one of the towering figures in Western philosophy and
theology, so great that he is even called the “angelic Doctor” by the Roman Catholic
Church. Within a twenty year span he wrote over forty books, including his
masterpiece The Summa Theologica, in which he constructs a vast system integrating
Greek philosophy with the Christian faith.

In the second part of this great work, as well as Book 3 of his shorter volume Summa
contra Gentiles, he sets out a systematic answer to the question of what human
happiness is, and whether it can be obtained in this life.

His ultimate answer is that perfect happiness (beatitudo) is not possible on earth, but an
imperfect happiness (felicitas) is. This puts Aquinas midway between those like Aristotle,
who believed complete happiness was possible in this lifetime, and another Christian
thinker, St. Augustine, who taught that happiness was impossible and that our main
pleasure consists merely in the anticipation of the heavenly afterlife.

The Cardinal Virtues and the Pursuit of Happiness

In the Declaration of Independence, when our nation’s founders spoke of an inalienable

right to the “pursuit of happiness,” they did not have in mind a mere feeling or emotional
state, as happiness is today often understood. They did not mean the pursuit of money
or self-indulgent pleasures, which invariably are fleeting. Much less did they claim a right
of seeking enjoyment in various vices or iniquity.

Instead, the founders used the term “happiness” in the classical sense of eudaimonia,
meaning to lead a good and virtuous life, from Greek and Roman philosophy and later
expanded upon by Christian thinkers like Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who
taught that the happy life is the blessed life found in God, who is Truth and Love. For
most of western civilization, in fact, education was directed toward helping the student
identify virtue and then develop a life based on it.

Basically, virtue is habitual and firm disposition toward doing what is right and good,
seeking the excellence of personal perfection so as to govern one’s actions and be the
master of one’s desires. Principal among the virtues are prudence, temperance, justice
and fortitude, in that all other manifestations of good human activity in some way hinge
upon these four “cardinal virtues,” which are knowable by human nature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that prudence guides the judgment of our
conscience in discerning our true good and in applying moral principles to particular
circumstances (CCC 1806). Following Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas described
prudence as “right reason in action.” Helping us to manage well our lives so as to do
good and avoid evil, prudence is the guide and measure for all the moral virtues.

The virtue of temperance “moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in
the use of created goods” (CCC 1809). God endowed human life with many good
instincts and desires, but as a result of Original Sin, many of these desires have become
disordered, leading us to sin. Temperance allows us to exercise self-control and keep
our worldly passions within the limits of what is good and honorable, rather than being a
slave to them. Perhaps another way to describe it is “moderation in all
things.” Temperance involves the balanced use of the many goods given us so that their
use remains ordered and at the service of the development of a good, well-rounded and
complete person.

Certainly all of us want to be a part of and contribute to a good and just society. Justice is
the virtue that consists in giving to God and neighbor what is due to each, giving to them
what rightly belongs to them (CCC 1807). A social virtue, justice disposes us to respect
the rights and freedoms of others and seeks to establish the peace and harmony that
bring together people and allow them to prosper while living in community.

When life presents its inevitable trials and tribulations, the virtue of fortitude, or courage
in the face of these challenges, goes to work. Fortitude provides the ability to persevere
in adversity. When we are confronted with moral choices, fortitude allows us to remain
strong and constant in our pursuit of what is good and gives us the strength to resist
temptation that would pull us in the wrong direction (CCC 1808).

The pursuit of happiness passes by way of virtue. However, it is not always easy or
automatic. The old adage “practice makes perfect” is applicable not only to one’s golf
stroke, tennis swing or piano playing, but also to virtue.

The strength of our character will reflect the perfection of our virtue. Moreover, the highest
happiness corresponds to the highest virtues – the theological virtues of faith, hope and
love which relate us to God and then, ultimately, to one another. These we will take up
in a subsequent blog posting.

B. Kant and rights theorists

1. Kant

a. The Good Will

The will, Kant says, is the faculty of acting according to a conception of law. When we
act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control,
so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome. What we can control,
however, is the will behind the action. That is, we can will to act according to one law
rather than another. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of
the motivation behind it. If two people, Smith and Jones, perform the same act, from the
same conception of the law, but events beyond Smith’s control prevent her from achieving
her goal, Smith is not less praiseworthy for not succeeding. We must consider them on
equal moral ground in terms of the will behind their actions.

The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other
candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth
can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good.
Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says,
requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite
all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for
instance, but the goodness of her will remains.

Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse
coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. A
shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge a child.
Kant argues, “it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to
the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals, Akademie pagination 390) There is a clear moral difference between the
shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers
and the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty.(Ibid., 398)
Likewise, in another of Kant’s carefully studied examples, the kind act of the person who
overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral
worth, whereas the same kind act of the person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading
joy does not. A person’s moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature endowed
them with accidentally. The selfishly motivated shopkeeper and the naturally kind person
both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters to morality is that
the actor think about their actions in the right manner.

We might be tempted to think that the motivation that makes an action good is having a
positive goal–to make people happy, or to provide some benefit. But that is not the right
sort of motive, Kant says. No outcome, should we achieve it, can be unconditionally good.
Fortune can be misused, what we thought would induce benefit might actually bring harm,
and happiness might be undeserved. Hoping to achieve some particular end, no matter
how beneficial it may seem, is not purely and unconditionally good. It is not the effect or
even the intended effect that bestows moral character on an action. All intended effects
“could be brought about through other causes and would not require the will of a rational
being, while the highest and unconditional good can be found only in such a will.”
(Ibid., 401) It is the possession of a rationally guided will that adds a moral dimension to
one’s acts. So it is the recognition and appreciation of duty itself that must drive our
actions.

b. Kant & Moral Imperatives

The notion of imperative is central to Kant’s philosophy, and particularly Kant’s ethics.

In Kant’s thought, the representation of a principle as a binding commitment is called a

command and the formula of the command is called an imperative. The imperatives are
expressed by the verb have to (sollen). “It must” not “I do”, this is the formula of command.

The imperative to the will says “must” when the will prefer to say “I want”. We do not obey
the imperative necessity and the imperative appears as a constraint. Kant pointed out
that a perfectly good will would have no need for imperative because it would necessarily
what is in accord with the moral law. This is true of God but the evil in humans is possible.
Our will must comply with the constraint of the imperative.
The two kinds of imperatives: Categorical & Hypothetical Imperatives

The hypothetical imperatives express the practical necessity of an action as a means

to achieve something you want or might want. They are conditional. They express
themselves as: “If I want to do this, then I have to do that.” They express only that the
action is good to accomplish a particular purpose. For example “If I want a nail, so I have
to use a hammer.” It is clear that this has nothing to do with morality.

The categorical imperatives express that action is needed for itself, objectively, with no
other purpose. The categorical imperative is not subject to any special conditions and is
therefore still valid whatever the circumstances. For example, if I can show that not to lie
is a must then I will always respect it, whatever the circumstances, even if such a
murderer wonder where lies my friend.

In Kant, only the categorical imperative is moral. It is the moral law and in fact none exists
even if only one can receive several formulations. The first formulation of the categorical
imperative says: “Always act so that you may also wish that the maxim of your action
become a universal law.” This is to ask every time we act if we can reasonably and without
wanting to contradict that everyone acts the same way. For example, suppose I need
money for basic need and that I borrowed knowing full well that I could never make it, I
promise that I will make a moral that money knowing that if I do not promise we do not
give me and yet I need? The question of the morality of such an act amounts to asking
whether it is possible to make a universal principle of false promise. But if so, whether
any promise was false, no one would believe what he promise and there would be no
sense to promise. Consider the false promise as morality is contradictory.

A second formulation of the categorical imperative states: “Act in such a way that you
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time
as an end and never merely as a means. ” In our example, it is clear that by false promises
I use the other as a means. I make him an instrument of my interest. Similarly want to
commit suicide is immoral, because making an end of me means continuing to live and
not to destroy me.

To conclude, one can say that categorical imperatives founded the sacrificial ethics in
Kant’s Philosophy.
2. Different kinds of rights

Rights: Meaning, Features and Types of Rights.

Rights are those essential conditions of social life without which no person can generally

realize his best self. These are the essential conditions for health of both the individual

and his society. It is only when people get and enjoy rights that they can develop their

personalities and contributes their best services to the society.

Rights: Meaning and Definition:

In simple words, rights are the common claims of people which every civilized society

recognizes as essential claims for their development, and which are therefore enforced

by the state.

1. “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general, to

be himself at his best.” -Laski

2. “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man’s vocation as a moral being.” -

T. H. Green

3. “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are necessary or

favourable to the development of personality” -Beni Prasad

As such, Rights are common and recognized claims of the people which are essential for

their development as human beings.

Features/Nature of Rights:

1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.

2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.

3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.
4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.

5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.

6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their

development in society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised

against social good.

7. Rights are equally available to all the people.

8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.

9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for

maintaining public health, security, order and morality.

10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them

“No Duties Ho Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to respect the

rights others in society”.

11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These

are protected and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the
rights of the people.

All these features clearly bring out the nature of Rights.

Types of Rights:

1. Natural Rights:

Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold that people

inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they used

to live in a state of nature. In it, they enjoyed certain natural rights, like the right to life,

right to liberty and right to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason.

However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as imaginary. Rights

are the products of social living. These can be used only in a society. Rights have behind

them the recognition of society as common claims for development, and that is why the

state protects these rights.

2. Moral Rights:

Moral Rights are those rights which are based on human consciousness. They are

backed by moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense of goodness

and justice. These are not backed by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public

opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights.

If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The state

does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights

include rules of good conduct, courtesy and of moral behaviour. These stand for moral

perfection of the people Legal Rights.

Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state. Any violation

of any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These

rights can be enforced against individuals and also against the government. In this way,

legal rights are different from moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the
citizens. All citizens enjoy legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts

for getting their legal rights enforced.

Legal Rights are of three types:

1. Civil Rights:

Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized

social life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and

equality are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.

2. Political Rights:

Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the political

process. These enable them to take an active part in the political process. These rights

include right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise and

oppose the government. Political rights are really available to the people in a democratic

state.

3. Economic Rights:

Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These

enable all citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of

every person are related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without the

fulfillment of these no person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore

essential, that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right to

leisure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical disability and old

age.
C. Utilitarianism
The History of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics
in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19 th century, proto-
utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to
be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There
are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a
form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences
produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the
relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good —
that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with
pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to
maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest
number’.

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's

happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the
good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good.
Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else
has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.

All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making
have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to
changes in the Classical version of the theory.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on

outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest
good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify
military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in
business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.
However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether
the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of
utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual
rights. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon
receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person
wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense
of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But
few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining

right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

D. Justice and Fairness: Promoting the common good

Justice Versus Fairness

In the context of conflict, the terms 'justice' and 'fairness' are often used interchangeably.

Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some
law. Some maintain that justice stems from God's will or command, while others believe
that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still others believe that justice consists of rules
common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of justice
is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases
where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call
it "unjust."

In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper
interests, property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] While justice in the broader sense is
often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness is more context-bound. Parties
concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt
procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their
"fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of "fair play."
The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play" for issues of
social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or ones that are
more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the various types of
justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice determine what
counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while principles of retributive or restorative
justice shape our response to activity that violates a society's rules of "fair play." Social
justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the rules.

People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of justice and
fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the organizations they are part
of, as well as their state or government.[3] They want institutions to treat them fairly and
to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair rules is often
expressed by a variety of justice principles.

Deserts, Equity, Equality, and Need

The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive
justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues.[4] These principles all
appeal to the notion of desert, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what
they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity,
punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs
met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to
achieve all of these goals simultaneously.

According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods
to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of
productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better
products...either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes,
should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this
sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society.

In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension
with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest
allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there
are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would
suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in
effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial
distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in
which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more
money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticized because
it does not recognize differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real
needs and purported needs.

Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their
own sake, but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal.[5] For example, while
equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the
importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among
society members.

2. Distributive justice

The Notion of Fair Distribution

Distributive justice is concerned with the fair allocation of resources among diverse
members of a community. Fair allocation typically takes into account the total amount of
goods to be distributed, the distributing procedure, and the pattern of distribution that
results.

Because societies have a limited amount of wealth and resources, the question of how
those benefits ought to be distributed frequently arises. The common answer is that public
assets should be distributed in a reasonable manner so that each individual receives a
"fair share." But this leaves open the question of what constitutes a "fair share."

Various principles might determine of how goods are distributed. Equality, equity, and
need are among the most common criteria.[3] If equality is regarded as the ultimate
criterion determining who gets what, goods will be distributed equally among all persons.
(In other words each person will get the same amount.) However, due to differences in
levels of need, this will not result in an equal outcome. (For example, every incoming
freshman to a local college with a grade point above 3.0 might be offered a $500
scholarship. This is a nice reward for students and parents who can afford the remaining
tuition, but is of no help to families that cannot afford the additional $6000/year fee to
attend the school.)

Some suggest a system of competition that includes safety nets for those who cannot
compete. This sort of system combines the principle of equity with that of need. It attempts
to reward people for their productivity at the same time that it ensures their basic needs
are met.

Finally, we might distribute resources according to social utility, or what is in the best
interests of society as a whole. This is the argument that is frequently made by high-paid
executives, who not only argue that they deserve their high salaries because of their
contributions to their businesses, but they also argue that they are the "job creators," thus
paying them highly benefits society as a whole. Others, however, think taxing them highly
and using the income to provide services to the less fortunate would be of greater overall
benefit to the society.

2. a. Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality

of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals,
in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People
should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals,
or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a
background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.
So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned,
one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human
souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different
types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as
equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term
“egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of
reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently
exists.

2. b. Social Justice and Capitalism

In its contemporary academic incarnation, social justice embraces the ethos of

redistribution to achieve fairness and equality. Within that ethos, certain mores,

assumptions, and habits of mind have been so thoroughly imbued in students, professors,
and public policy elites that they have become second nature. At the same time, many

aspects of the intellectual traditions on which our economic and social order was founded

have not only been discarded, but largely forgotten. And current undergraduates are

unlikely to learn them at all.

Thus, most of today’s college graduates have no conception of just how contrary the

pervasive underlying components of “social justice” are to those of the founding order and

to its concomitant view of human nature. As such, they are wholly unable to appreciate

how and why the basic principles of capitalism and limited government led to our

successful economic, political, and social order. What should be more closely examined

are the specific assumptions that constitute social justice and why they are inimical to a

prosperous social order and to individuals. To that end, let’s first directly contrast the

distinctive tenets of social justice and of capitalism within our founding order.

Social justice is based on the following tenets:

 Human nature is a blank slate; inequalities stem largely from the social order.

 Individuals must be made equal by the social order to redress undeserved

inequalities.
 Individual freedom is created by the state through allocations of rights and

resources to designated social groups.

 Equality of opportunity is socially constructed by the state to achieve social

diversity.

 Individuals are evaluated as members of oppressed groups and by share of

communal result.

 Inequality of outcome is unfair; fairness is the equal sharing of societal outcomes

among groups.
 Reward is based on rights to communal sharing, inspiring envy and inducing

entitlement.

 Recognition comes from group preferences awarded to redress privilege and past

oppression.

 Equality as fairness overrides all other values, including efficiency, productivity,

and the common good of the organizational entity.

 Hierarchy is based on diversity by group to overcome privilege.

 Equality is the goal. Capitalism and limited government, by contrast, is based

on very different premises:

 Human nature is inherent, with innate but unequal potentialities among individuals.

 Individuals bring inequalities of abilities and interests, and a work ethic, to the

social order.

 Individual freedom derives from natural rights and emphasizes personal

responsibility and opportunity.

 Equality of opportunity is determined by diversity of learned capabilities and legal

equality (prohibiting prejudice and discrimination).

 Individuals are evaluated as persons who perform and deserve unequally.

 Inequality of outcome is inevitable and fair; fairness is judged by differential

achievement and contribution.

 Reward is based on equity and reciprocity, incentivizing performance and

inspiring cooperation.

 Recognition comes from accomplishment in mutually beneficial exchange and

fair competition.

 Equality is subordinate to productivity to maximize the common good of the

organizational entity

 Herarchy is also fair, and is based on function and merit.

 Excellence is the goal.

2. c. What Is Social Justice?

Social justice is a political and philosophical theory which asserts that there are
dimensions to the concept of justice beyond those embodied in the principles of
civil or criminal law, economic supply and demand, or traditional moral frameworks.
Social justice tends to focus more on just relations between groups within society
as opposed to the justice of individual conduct or justice for individuals.

Historically and in theory, the idea of social justice is that all people should have
equal access to wealth, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and opportunity
regardless of their legal, political, economic, or other circumstances. In modern
practice, social justice revolves around favoring or punishing different groups of
the population, regardless of any given individual's choices or actions, based on
value judgements regarding historical events, current conditions, and group
relations. In economic terms, this often means redistribution of wealth, income, and
economic opportunities from groups whom social justice advocates consider to be
oppressors to those whom they consider to be the oppressed. Social justice is
often associated with identity politics, socialism, and revolutionary communism.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 Social justice is a political philosophical concept originally centered around

equality among people along various social dimensions.
 In economic terms, social justice efforts usually seek to elevate or degrade
the economic status of various groups defined by group identity or
demographic characteristics like race, gender, and religion.
 In practice, social justice can be pursued through various peaceful or non-
peaceful forms of activism or government policy.
 In socialist economies, social justice forms a foundational principle of
economic policy.
Understanding Social Justice

Social justice forms the basis for socialistic economic systems and is also taught
in some religious traditions. In general, social justice originated as a broad concept
supporting equal rights through various types of initiatives for citizens. Social
justice is closely related to conflict theory and redressing perceived wrongs of past
or ongoing conflict between groups of people and parts of society. This often
focuses either on favoring the interests of certain groups within a population whom
its proponents consider to be oppressed or on undermining the interests of and
directly attacking groups which they consider to be in some sense oppressors.

Efforts to promote social justice usually target various demographics, either to

further their interests in order to counteract perceived oppression or to punish them
for perceived past offenses. Broadly, demographic characteristics often the target
of social justice attention include: race, ethnicity, and nationality; gender and
sexual orientation; age; religious affiliation; and disability. Different types of social
justice initiatives may exist to promote equality or redistribute power and status
between groups in the areas of wealth, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and
economic status. In economic terms, social justice most often amounts to efforts
to redistribute wealth, income, or economic opportunities from privileged groups
toward underprivileged ones.

Proponents of social justice can seek to achieve their goals through a wide range
of peaceful or non-peaceful means, including various government programs, social
campaigns, public activism, violent revolution, or even terrorism. At the
government level, social justice initiatives can be pursued through various different
types of programs. These can include direct redistribution of wealth and income;
protected legal status in employment, government subsidies, and other areas for
underprivileged groups; or legalized discrimination against privileged groups up to
and including expropriation, collective punishment, and purges.