Determining A Just Society: Examining The Criteria Of Unequal Distribution Of Wealth And Income

The concept of justice is fundamental to any discussion of how society ought to be organised, and questions of justice inevitably arise when one considers the unequal distribution of income and wealth in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and other societies.

In the light of the above statement, discuss the criteria to determine whether a society is just or unjust. You might want to include examples and illustrations of such societies.

The Concept of Justice

The integrity of any society depends on the way its people behave with others and follow the codes of conduct that the society has set. Justice and fairness are the two fundamental elements of a society and these decide the way a society must be organized. Justice refers to the philosophical or the legal theories that administers fairness. Many philosophers and theorists have devised numerous theories by which justice could supposedly be ensured (Ake 2017). In the context of the topic, justice is compromised when wealth and income is unequally distributed. A society’s justness and unjustness is determined largely by this parameter. A just society could then be said to be the one that encourages equal distribution of wealth and income. In contrast to this, unjust societies are those that fail to meet these criteria.

The essay discusses the criteria that determine whether a society is just or unjust in the light of the given statement. It aims to provide an elaborate and coherent discussion on the concept of justice and fairness and the way wealth and income distribution determine these concepts. The essay first introduces the statement and explains it. Then, it explains the concept of justice in details. It then focuses on the criteria of unequal distribution of wealth and income in societies like that of the United States, Australia and New Zealand. After that, the essay discusses whether these societies are just or unjust.

“The concept of justice is fundamental to any discussion of how society ought to be organised, and questions of justice inevitably arise when one considers the unequal distribution of income and wealth in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and other societies”.

The above statement highlights the issue of justice and claims that it is the basic principle that governs the way a society is organized. Further, the statement explains that doubts and questions regarding justice arise when there is visible inequality in the distribution of wealth and income mainly in developed societies like Australia, America and New Zealand amongst others. It is thus important to discuss whether the criteria of unequal wealth and income distribution are enough to designate a society as just or unjust. 

Several scholars have researched Justice, as a concept over the years and it gained prominence especially after the wars. The concept, in broader sense, refers to “action in accordance with the requirements of some law” (Montague 2017). However, justice has connotations pertaining to the will of God or his command or even the nature. Apart from that, some are of the view that justice constitutes the rules common to all human beings, which has been formed from some type of consensus. Justice of this type is at ties considered even higher than the legal system of a society. When the concept is seen from this perspective, any action that seems to breach certain universal rules within the society, it is considered ‘unjust’. Montague (2017) sheds light on the concept of justice and explores it relation to law. The author finds that the “there has been a revival of interest in the idea of justice and its relation to law” post the War (Montague 2017).

Criteria of Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Income

Oppenheim (2018) on the other hand, finds three facets linked to the concept of justice. According to the author, justice comprises three aspects including ‘interpersonal adjudication’, ‘law based on fault’ and ‘procedures’. Interpersonal adjudication, defines the author, as based on the responsibilities and duties of the individual human being. The interpersonal aspect is the liberal concept of justice, which is mitigation of conflicts amongst individuals. The second aspect of law based on fault states that no one should be punished for a fault that is done unintentionally. The aspect of fault is probably the first thread towards the formulation of the legal order based on justice. The third aspect, which is laws based on procedures, puts emphasis on the due process of attaining justice. Oplatka (2014) states that procedures ensure that justice is given to the concerned individuals without any haste and that all the things are duly examined.

The concept of justice is crucial and fundamental to all societies including the Western society. It is one of the most significant ethical and political concepts. Philosophers across nations have delved deeper into the concept beyond the common definition and attempt to explore the concept as “both a moral virtue of character and a desirable quality of political society” (Wolff and Gittleman 2014). In addition, they have explored the way the concept is applied to decision-making from both social and ethical perspective. The Western philosophers regarded justice as “the most fundamental of all virtues for ordering interpersonal relations and establishing and maintaining a stable political society” (Graness 2015). Philosophers have explored the concept of justice differently across eras, from the Ancient Greece, Medieval Christianity to contemporary times. During the ancient times, justice was considered a moral virtue and a just society was the one where each section carried out its duties without interfering with appropriate functioning of other sections (Begum and Awan 2013). In Aristotle’s views, justice is ensured when there is “equitable distributions and correction of what is inequitable” (Wiens 2014). Aristotle was probably the first philosopher who introduced the concept of distributive justice, which involved the equal division of both benefits and burdens amongst members of a society. As time passed, doubts regarding the concept of justice began to surface, which is evident from the views of philosophers. Thomas Hobbes viewed justice as an “artificial virtue”, which is needed for the civil society (Kopajtic 2015). Hume considered justice as serving the public convenience by protecting their property. On the other hand, Kant saw justice as something that respects the dignity and avoids violating other’s rights. 

Distribution of Wealth and Income in the United States

However, in terms of the topic in focus, the views of John Rawls and the later philosophers on justice are important to consider. Rawls, in his works regarding justice focused mostly on the problems of ‘distributive justice’. Distributive justice refers to the “socially just” allocation of commodities in a society (James 2017). This form of justice deals with the principles of equality, equity, liberty and need. Amongst many of Rawls’ philosophies, one suggests that justice necessitates a huge “redistribution of wealth”. Matsuda (2017) supports this view of Rawls stating that it has been revolutionary for countries like the United States and other countries especially the English-speaking countries.

The later theorists following Rawls including Nozick, Nielsen and Pogge amongst others further elaborated the concept of justice in the context of distribution of wealth and income. Nozick, one of the first critics of Rawls states that it is unjustified to compromise individual liberty to encourage socio-economic equality. He instead advocated a “minimal state” as being the only socially just. In Nozick’s views, anyone who has h justly earned any holding or property has the right to keep and use it and those acquisitions done through theft or fraud must be rectified. He rejected the idea of redistribution of wealth through taxes and other ways from the well-off individuals to the disadvantaged and considered it unjust. Koubi and Böhmelt (2014), while commenting on the distribution of wealth, argues, “The effect on conflict and grievances, in the form of horizontal inequalities is conditioned on national wealth”. An understanding of the author’s view reveals that the societies where wealth is in abundant but distribution is unequal and majority of people are denied access to it are largely unjust. 

Considering the above discussion, the emphasis on the distribution of wealth and income as a parameter for just and unjust society by western philosophers, it is important to examine the situation in the United States. Wealth encompasses the values relating to residential properties, automobiles, businesses, investments and savings. As per the 2017 data for net worth, the country has approximately USD 95 trillion in only the first quarter. An equal division of this amount amongst the 124 million U.S. citizens would mean that each family would have around USD 760, 000 as income (Lindert and Williamson 2016). However, the picture is very different as more than 60 million families have an average net worth of USD 11,000 only. To say that the U.S is an unjust society, as it does not encourage equal distribution of wealth would be correct from one perspective and wrong from other. The American society is unjust from ancient view of justice and fairness but from the modern views, it is a just society as those who have earned it justly deserve the wealth and are not entitled to distribute it (Kunnan 2013).

Distribution of Wealth and Income in Australia

In case of Australia, the situation is similar in terms of wealth and income distribution. In the 2015-2016 periods, 40% of total income was possessed by the highest income quintile while the lowest income quintile only received 8% of the total income (Abs.gov.au 2018). The pattern has stayed constant over the past two decades. The inequality in income distribution has been largely due to the larger proportion middle and small income households compared to the smaller proportion of high income households. The inequality in wealth is even more visible as around 20% wealthiest Australians owned household wealth of over 60% and the lowest 20% had less than 1% household wealth (Abs.gov.au 2018). These stats and figures show that the Australian society is unjust if it measured by the criteria of wealth and income distribution in the contemporary era. However, it is important to consider other sections of the Australian society to see if it is unjust or just as per ancient perspectives of justice. Australia is a multicultural society inhabited by diverse communities. The colonial history of the country is also an important facet of the society. Looking at these factors, Australia has been an unjust society as it has given poor treatment to its minor communities especially the Indigenous inhabitants.

The scenario in New Zealand is even worse when it comes to wealth and income distribution. The top wealthiest individuals in the country have more than 70% of the total wealth while the 40% own just 3% of the total wealth (Archive.stats.govt.nz 2018). As per the parameters set by Rawls, the New Zealand society is unjust because it does not have an equal distribution of wealth. However, from Nozick’s point of view, the society is just despite such disparity because the possessors of the wealth have earned it in a just way and they are not responsible for others (Segal 2013). In Aristotle’s view, the New Zealand society is unjust because there is absence of equitable distribution and attempts have not been made to correct it. On the other hand, when the criteria are equal treatment of every individual, the New Zealand society has been unjust because it has treated its Pacific community unfairly over the years. It relates to the ancient theory of justice propagated by Plato.

The above discussion provides a clear distinction between the concept of justice based on the criteria of distribution of wealth and income. It is evident that the justness and unjustness of a society cannot be determined simply by looking at its wealth and income distribution. The views of the philosophers and theorists from the past and present differ largely. With a view to understand whether a society following the criteria of distribution of wealth and income is just or unjust, Marquez (2018) made some interesting observations. The author also included the studies conducted by scholars who found unequal distribution of wealth produces other inequalities in terms of social, economic, educational and health. The author supports the views presented by the authors stating that economic disparity does make a society unjust because of the reasons mentioned above. However, he also remarks that the views regarding the link between income inequality and unjust society would essentially differ. The reason is that these views are based on contestable instincts. The author states, “to argue for income equality is to enter a conversation where there is much potential for disappointment, the arguments might fail to convince” (Marquez 2018). 

Distribution of Wealth and Income in New Zealand

It could however be argued that the disparity in wealth and income distribution does lead to disparities in the quality of life of people. The notion of a ‘just’ and ‘fair’ society is difficult to follow when one section of the society suffers from poverty and the other flourishes. The principle of equity states that a society is economically just when it equally distributes commodities to individuals “in proportion to their input” (Benhabib, Bisin and Zhu 2015). The input here means productivity of the individuals however, it might also refer to talent and ability individuals possess. Theorists, who find nothing wrong with the unequal distribution of wealth claim that those who deserve it should possess wealth and income. Hence, in this light, a society where an able and talented individual is paid for his or her efforts is a just society. Hein (2013) contrasts this view stating that the principle rejects the dissimilarities in efforts, abilities and productivity. The author claims that the differences in efforts and abilities have to be considered while distributing wealth and income because it might unfairly disadvantage an individual deserving it.

Apart from the principles of equity, equality and need relating to the concept of justice, the principles of impartiality, consistency and trust are also important to understand. These principles are central to the retributive, procedural, standing and restorative justice as mentioned above. A close examination of these principles reveals different perspective on just and unjust society. Proponents of these principles argue that when a society promotes the unbiased and universally accepted procedures in cases of distribution of wealth and delivering decisions could ensure reliability and impartiality. The standing principle states that the disadvantaged members of a society must be included in the decision-making process. These principles further establish that a society is just when it ensures equal participation and not just equal distribution of wealth and income. Therefore, the criteria of unequal distribution of wealth and distribution as observed in societies like the U.S., Australia and New Zealand are not enough to designate them as just or unjust.

Conclusion

The ancient and contemporary theories of justice demonstrate that there is much debate regarding what constitutes a just and unjust society. The essay attempted to present the views and ideologies of philosophers from the ancient until the current time to provide a coherent discussion. The discussion revealed that the approach to justice and fairness changed from the ancient times of Plato and Aristotle to the modern times of Hobbes, Humes, Rawls and Nozick. The essay attempted to demonstrate the similarities and differences in their views regarding justice and fairness. It was revealed that with the gradual transition of the different eras, the focus shifted from moral virtues and distribution of wealth to minimal state and procedural justice. While most early philosophers neglected equality in participation and focused only on distributive justice, most recent philosophers stressed at participative justice. The essay also provided examples of certain societies like the United States, Australia and New Zealand and their status on the distribution of wealth and income. The findings conveyed that all the three societies are economically unjust, which is there is remarkable presence of wealth and income unequal distribution. However, the essay also highlighted the justness of these societies in terms of other aspects like treatment of its individuals. Australian and New Zealand societies are unjust in this regard, the essay found. The conclusion can thus be drawn that although unequal distribution of wealth and income are crucial criteria, other aspects must be considered as well 

References:

Abs.gov.au 2018. 6523.0 - Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2015-16. [online] Abs.gov.au. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/6523.0~2015-16~Main%20Features~Household%20Income%20and%20Wealth%20Distribution~6 [Accessed 7 Sep. 2018].

Ake, C., 2017. Justice as equality. In Justice (pp. 121-141). Routledge.

Archive.stats.govt.nz 2018. Wealth and Disparities in New Zealand. [online] Archive.stats.govt.nz. Available at: https://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Families/wealth-and-disparities-in-new-zealand.aspx [Accessed 7 Sep. 2018].

Begum, S. and Awan, A.B., 2013. Plato? s Concept of Justice and Current Political Scenario in Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(11).

Benhabib, J., Bisin, A. and Zhu, S., 2015. The wealth distribution in Bewley economies with capital income risk. Journal of Economic Theory, 159, pp.489-515.

Graness, A., 2015. Is the debate on ‘global justice’a global one? Some considerations in view of modern philosophy in Africa. Journal of Global Ethics, 11(1), pp.126-140.

Hein, E., 2013. Finance-dominated capitalism and re-distribution of income: a Kaleckian perspective. Cambridge journal of economics, 39(3), pp.907-934.

James, A., 2017. Constructing justice for existing practice: Rawls and the status quo. In John Rawls (pp. 69-104). Routledge.

Kopajtic, L., 2015. Cultivating Strength of Mind: Hume on the Government of the Passions and Artificial Virtue. Hume Studies, 41(2), pp.201-229.

Koubi, V. and Böhmelt, T., 2014. Grievances, economic wealth, and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), pp.19-33.

Kunnan, A.J., 2013. Fairness and justice in language assessment. The companion to language assessment, 3, pp.1098-1114.

Lindert, P.H. and Williamson, J.G., 2016. Unequal gains: American growth and inequality since 1700. Juncture, 22(4), pp.276-283.

Marquez, X., 2018. Is income inequality unjust? Perspectives from political philosophy. Policy Quarterly, 7(2).

lity, 12(4), pp.439-468.