POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

salus populi est suprema lex

Welfare of the People shall be the Supreme Law

ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Social Justice
1) Social justice in the Constitution is principally the embodiment
of the principle that those who have less in life should have more in
law.
2) The 1987 Constitution advances beyond what was in previous
Constitutions in that it seeks not only economic social justice but
also political social justice.

Principal activities in order to achieve social

justice
1) Creation of more economic opportunities and more wealth; and
2) Closer regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use and
disposition of property in order to achieve a more equitable
distribution of wealth and political power.

Labor

Section 3 of Article XIII elaborates on the provision in Article II by

specifying who are protected by the Constitution, what rights are

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

guaranteed, and what positive measures the state should take in
order to enhance the welfare of labor.

Right to organize and to hold peaceful

concerted activities

The right to organize is given to all kinds of workers BOTH in the

PRIVATE and PUBLIC sectors.

The workers have a right to hold peaceful concerted activities
except the right to strike, which is subject to limitation by law.

Right to participate in the decision making

process of employers
The workers have the right to participate on matters affecting their
rights and benefits, as may be provided by law. This participation
can be through
1)

collective bargaining agreements,

2)

grievance machineries,

3)

voluntary modes of settling disputes, and

4)

conciliation proceedings mediated by government.

Agrarian Reform
Goals:
Agrarian reform must aim at
1) efficient production,

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

2) a more equitable distribution of land which recognizes the right
of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless to own the land
they till, and
3) a just share of other or seasonal farmworkers in the fruits of the
land.
CARL as an exercise of police power and power of eminent domain

To the extent that the law prescribes retention limits for

landowners, there is an exercise of police power. But where it
becomes necessary to deprive owners of their land in excess of the
maximum allowed there is compensable taking and therefore the
exercise of eminent domain.

Reach of agrarian reform

It extends not only to private agricultural lands, but also to other

natural resources, even including the use and enjoyment of
communal marine and fishing resources and offshore fishing
grounds.

The Commission on Human Rights

Composition:
1) Chairman; and
2) 4 members
Qualifications:
1) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines;

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

2) Majority of the Commission must be members of the Philippine
Bar;
3) Term of office, other qualifications and disabilities shall be
provided by law;
4) The appointment of the CHR members is NOT subject to CA
confirmation; and
5) The CHR is not of the same level as the COMELEC, CSC, or COA.
Powers:
1) Investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil or
political rights
A. Violations may be committed by public officers or by civilians or
rebels.
B. CHR cannot investigate violations of social rights.
C. CHR has NO adjudicatory powers over cases involving human
rights violations.
D. They cannot investigate cases where no rights are violated.
E. Example: There is no right to occupy government land, i.e. squat
thereon. Therefore, eviction therefrom is NOT a human rights
violation.
2) Adopt operational guidelines and rules of procedure.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

3) Cite for contempt for violations of its rules, in accordance with
the Rules of Court.
4) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of the
human rights of all persons, within the Philippines, as well as
Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and
legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have
been violated or need protection.
A. CHR can initiate court proceedings on behalf of victims of human
rights violations.
B. They can recommend the prosecution of human rights violators,
but it cannot itself prosecute these cases.
C. BUT: The CHR cannot issue restraining orders or injunctions
against alleged human rights violators. These must be obtained from
the regular courts.
5) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons and other detention
facilities.
6) Establish continuing programs for research, education and
information in order to enhance respect for the primacy of human
rights.
7) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human
rights and to provide compensation to victims of human rights
violations or their families.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

8) Monitor compliance by the government with international treaty
obligations on human rights.
9) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony
or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any CHR investigation.
10) Request assistance from any department, bureau, office, or
agency in the performance of its functions.
11) Appoint its officers and employers in accordance with law.
12) Perform such other functions and duties as may be provided for
by law

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Defining Economic Justice and Social

Justice
American University, Washington, DC
http://www.cesj.org/learn/definitions/defining-economic-justice-and-social-justice/

Defining Our Terms

One definition of justice is giving to each what he or she is due.
The problem is knowing what is due.
Functionally, justice is a set of universal principles which guide
people in judging what is right and what is wrong, no matter what
culture and society they live in. Justice is one of the four cardinal
virtues of classical moral philosophy, along with courage,
temperance (self-control) and prudence (efficiency). (Faith, hope
and charity are considered to be the three religious virtues.)
Virtues or good habits help individuals to develop fully their
human potentials, thus enabling them to serve their own selfinterests as well as work in harmony with others for their common
good.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

The ultimate purpose of all the virtues is to elevate the dignity
and sovereignty of the human person.

Distinguishing Justice From Charity

While often confused, justice is distinct from the virtue of charity.
Charity, derived from the Latin wordcaritas, or divine love, is
the soul of justice. Justice supplies the material foundation for
charity.
While justice deals with the substance and rules for guiding
ordinary, everyday human interactions, charity deals with the
spirit of human interactions and with those exceptional cases
where strict application of the rules is not appropriate or
sufficient. Charity offers expedients during times of hardship.
Charity compels us to give to relieve the suffering of a person in
need. The highest aim of charity is the same as the highest aim of
justice: to elevate each person to where he does not need charity
but can become charitable himself.
True charity involves giving without any expectation of return. But
it is not a substitute for justice.

Defining Social Justice

Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the
virtue which guides us in creating those organized human
interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when
justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the
person, both individually and in our associations with others.
Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

to work with others to design and continually perfect our
institutions as tools for personal and social development.

Defining Economic Justice

Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as
the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us
in designing our economic institutions. These institutions
determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts,
exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise
produces an independent material foundation for his or her
economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is
to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work
beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.

The Three Principles of Economic

Justice
Like every system, economic justice involves input, output, and
feedback for restoring harmony or balance between input and
output. Within the system of economic justice as defined by Louis
Kelso and Mortimer Adler, there are three essential and
interdependent principles: Participative Justice (the input
principle),Distributive Justice (the out-take principle),
and Social Justice (the feedback principle). Like the legs of a
three-legged stool, if any of these principles is weakened or
missing, the system of economic justice will collapse.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Participative Justice
Participative Justice describes how one makes input to the
economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal
opportunity in gaining access to private property in productive
assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive
work. The principle of participation does not guarantee equal
results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by societys
institutions the equal human right to make a productive
contribution to the economy, both through ones labor (as a
worker) and through ones productive capital (as an owner). Thus,

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

this principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other
exclusionary social barriers to economic self-reliance.

Distributive Justice
Distributive Justice defines the output or out-take rights of
an economic system matched to each persons labor and capital
inputs. Through the distributional features of private property
within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes
automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become
linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive
justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to
the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most
objective and democratic means for determining the just price,
the just wage, and the just profit.
Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of
charity. Charity involves the concept to each according to his
needs, whereas distributive justice is based on the idea to
each according to his contribution. Confusing these principles
leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to
intervene excessively to maintain social order.
Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down
when all persons are not given equal opportunity to acquire and
enjoy the fruits of income-producing property.

Social Justice
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Social Justice is the feedback principle that detects distortions
of the input and/or out-take principles and guides the corrections
needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. This
principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by
monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit
others.
Economic harmony results when Participative and Distributive
Justice are operating fully for every person within a system or
institution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines economic
harmonies as Laws of social adjustment under which the selfinterest of one man or group of men, if given free play, will
produce results offering the maximum advantage to other men
and the community as a whole. Social Justice offers guidelines
for controlling monopolies, building checks-and-balances within
social institutions, and re-synchronizing distribution (outtake) with
participation (input). The first two principles of economic justice
flow from the eternal human search for justice in general, which
automatically requires a balance between input and outtake, i.e.,
to each according to what he is due. Social Justice, on the other
hand, reflects the human striving for other universal values such
as Truth, Love and Beauty. It compels people to look beyond
what is, to what ought to be, and continually repair and improve
their systems for the good of every person.
It should be noted that Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler referred to
the third principle as the principle of limitation as a restraint on
human tendencies toward greed and monopoly that lead to
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

exclusion and exploitation of others. Given the potential synergies
inherent in economic justice in todays high technology world,
CESJ feels that the concept of social justice is more appropriate
and more-encompassing than the term limitation in describing
the third component of economic justice. Furthermore, the
harmony that results from the operation of social justice is more
consistent with the truism that a society that seeks peace must
first work for justice.
(For more discussion on these terms, see Chapter 5 of The Capitalist

Manifesto, by Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler (Random House, 1958)

and Chapters 3 and 4 of Curing World Poverty: The New Role of

Property, John H. Miller, ed., Social Justice Review.)

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

What is Social Justice?

Matthew Robinson, PhD
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
http://gjs.appstate.edu/social-justice-and-human-rights/what-social-justice

Social justice is defined as "... promoting a just society by challenging injustice

and valuing diversity." It exists when "all people share a common humanity and
therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and
a fair allocation of community resources." In conditions of social justice, people
are "not be discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or
prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliations, age,
race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or
other characteristic of background or group membership" (Toowoomba Catholic
Education, 2006).
Social justice is generally equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity
in society. Although equality is undeniably part of social justice, the meaning of
social justice is actually much broader (Scherlen and Robinson, 2008). Further,
"equal opportunity" and similar phrases such as "personal responsibility" have
been used to diminish the prospective for realizing social justice by justifying
enormous inequalities in modern society (Berry, 2005). The most recent theories
of and scholarly statements about social justice illustrate the complex nature of
the concept.
Two of the most prominent statements about social justice, each of which posits
its own theory of social justice, are John Rawls' (2003) Justice as Fairness and
David Miller's (2003) Principles of Social Justice. While neither of these theories
can be considered an exhaustive treatment of the subject matter, each offers a
complex theory of social justice that illustrates its broad meaning. Both
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

conceptions of social justice are similar, so there is significant overlap between
the main ideas of the theorists; this is likely due to the fact that they are founded
on like principles and based on previously posited theories from significant
historical political philosophers (Brighouse, 2005).
Below, I thoroughly summarize the social justice theories of John Rawls and
David Miller. By understanding the arguments of these two authors, the purposes
of the Center for Social Justice and Human Rights should become clearer.

John Rawls
Goal of the Book
John Rawls posits a theory of social justice commonly referred to as "justice as
fairness." Rawls (2003) set out to sketch a theory of social justice that would
answer the questions: "once we view a democratic society as a fair system of
social cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal, what principles
are most appropriate to it?" and "...which principles are most appropriate for a
democratic society that not only professes but wants to take seriously ... that
citizens are free and equal, and tries to realize that idea in its main
institutions?"[1]

What is Social Justice?

To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to
liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged
members of society. Thus, whether something is just or unjust depends on
whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights,
opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair
share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls' conception of social justice is developed around the idea of a social
contract, whereby people freely enter into an agreement to follow certain rules for
the betterment of everyone, without considering the implications of these rules for
their own selfish gain. Rawls posits that rational, free people will agree to play by
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

the rules under fair conditions and that this agreement is necessary to assure
social justice because public support is critical to the acceptance of the rules of
the game (Rawls, 2003: 27-28). These rules or principles "specify the basic rights
and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they
regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the
burdens necessary to sustain it" (Rawls, 2003: 7).
Rawls does not suggest that everyone will agree with what justice requires in
given situations, but rather that his conception of justice as fairness can fit into
"conflicting doctrines" because of what he calls "overlapping consensus." That is,
people agree enough about the basic principles of justice he offers that even
when they disagree about larger moral, religious of philosophical issues they can
still agree about issues of social justice (Rawls, 2003: 32-37).
It is important to note that Rawls' theory is one of domestic justice (principles that
apply to the basic structures of society) and not of local justice (principles that
apply to institutions and associations in society) or global justice (principles
applying to international law) (Rawls, 2003: 11-12). Rawls says that global justice
is beyond the scope of his theory, although international law is relevant for social
justice. Further, the principles of social justice that apply to the structures of
society help determine what is just within society's institutions and associations.
Finally, Rawls does not posit an unrealistically utopian vision of what is justice but
instead offers a theory of social justice that is "realistically utopian" (Rawls, 2003:
4). Rawls attempts to answer "[w]hat would a just democratic society be like
under reasonably favorable by still possible historical conditions, conditions
allowed by the laws and tendencies of the social world?"
Rawls' Principles of Social Justice: Equal Liberties, Equal Opportunity, and the
Difference Principle
Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness," aimed at answering the above questions,
can be summarized with two primary principles. They are:

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Each person has the same indefensible claim to a fully adequate scheme
of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme
of liberties for all[2]; and

Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they
are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity[3]; and second, they are to be to the greatest
benefit of the least-advantaged members of society[4] (Rawls, 2003: 4243).

According to Rawls, these principles are ordered, meaning the first principle (the
"equal liberties principle") should be achieved before efforts to achieve the
second principle are attempted. Further, the first part of the second principle (the
"equal opportunity principle") precedes the second part (the "difference
principle").
The ordering of the principles suggests that, to Rawls, equality is the most
important element of social justice. Equality means a fair distribution of each of
the capacities needed "to be normal and fully cooperating members of society
over a complete life" (Rawls, 2003: 18). Rawls explains that the "priority [of
equality] means ... that the second principle (which includes the difference
principle as one part) is always to be applied within a setting of background
institutions that satisfy the requirements of the first principle (including the
requirement of securing the fair value of the political liberties) ..." (Rawls, 2003:
46). Background institutions refer to basic structures of society (e.g., family,
school, religion, economy, polity), which, when just, can be referred to as
"background justice" (Rawls, 2003: 10).

The Scope of the Principles

Not only can Rawls' first principle be differentiated from the second in terms of
priority or importance, each also has its own scope. That is, each is meant to
have its own unique applications. According to Rawls, the first principle applies to
the "constitutional essentials" whereas the second applies to "the background

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

institutions of social and economic justice in the form most appropriate to citizens
seen as free and equal" (Rawls, 2003: 47-48).
Rawls explains that the principles of justice as fairness are adopted and applied
in a four-stage sequence. The first is the adoption of the principles of justice to
regulate a society. Rawls (2003: 15) asserts that these must be adopted behind a
"veil of ignorance," which exists when there is a limit on information because
"parties are not allowed to know the social positions or the particular
comprehensive doctrines of the people they represent. They also do not know
persons' race and ethnic group, sex, or various native endowments such as
strength and intelligence, all within the normal range."
The second phase is the constitutional convention, which sets forth the
institutions and basic processes of governance. The third stage is the legislative
stage, where just laws are enacted. Finally, the fourth stage is the application of
the rules by administrators, the interpretation of the constitution and laws by the
judiciary, and the following of the rules by members of society in the conditions
required by justice as fairness.

When are Inequalities Unjust?

Just because Rawls' conception of social justice values equality, this does not
mean that equal outcomes will be achieved in society, or that they even can be.
In fact, Rawls' second principle asserts that inequalities in society are acceptable
as long as they meet two conditions. First, as per the "equal opportunity
principle," inequalities are acceptable if every person in society has a reasonable
chance of obtaining the positions that lead to the inequalities. An example would
be equal opportunity to achieve any job. Rawls (2003: 43) specifies that "fair
equality of opportunity" requires "not merely that public offices and social
positions open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to attain
them."
Further, Rawls (2003: 44) is very explicit that beyond this, "certain requirements
must be imposed on the basic structure beyond those of the system of natural
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

liberty. A free market system must be set within a framework of political and legal
institutions that adjust the long-run trend of economic forces so as to prevent
excessive concentrations of property and wealth, especially those likely to lead to
political domination." Beyond political domination, extreme concentrations of
wealth "are likely to undermine fair equality of opportunity [and] the fair value of
the political liberties" (Rawls, 2003: 53).
Second, as per the "difference principle," inequalities in society must be
organized so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
members of society. After explaining that today's economic inequalities are
simply not acceptable, Rawls (2003: 59-60) explains the difference principle this
way: "To say that inequalities in income and wealth are to be arranged for the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged simply means that we are to compare
schemes of cooperation by seeing how well off the least advantaged are under
each scheme, and then to select the scheme under which the least advantaged
are better off than they are under any other scheme." With two competing
arrangements of incomes in a society, the fairer of the two -- and therefore the
more just of the two -- is the one that is to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged. For example, if in one arrangement, the most well off class (e.g.,
chief financial officers) received compensation in the amount of ten million dollars
per year while the least well off (e.g., average workers) were paid a salary of
$14,000, and in another the most well off received compensation in the amount
of three million dollars per year while the least off were paid a salary of $30,000,
the second arrangement would be to the greatest advantage of the least
advantaged and thus the most just.
By the least advantaged, Rawls is referring to those who lack what he calls
"primary goods" (Rawls, 2003: 53). Primary goods, according to Rawls, include
"things needed and required by persons seen in the light of the political
conception of persons, as citizens who are fully cooperating members of society,
and not merely as human beings apart from any normative conception. These
goods are things citizens need as free and equal persons living a complete life;

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

they are not things it is simply rational to want or desire, or to prefer or even to
crave" (Rawls, 2003: 58). Such goods include:

The basic rights and liberties: freedom of thought and liberty of

conscience, and the rest;

Freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a

background of diverse opportunities, which opportunities allow the pursuit
of a variety of ends and give effect to decisions to revise and alter them;

Powers and prerogatives of office and position of authority and

responsibility;

Income and wealth, understood as all-purpose means (having an

exchange value) generally needed to achieve a wide range of ends
whatever they may be; and

The social bases of self-respect, understood as those aspects of basic

institutions normally essential if citizens are to have a lively sense of their
worth as persons and to be able to advance their ends with self-confidence
(Rawls, 2003: 58-59).

The Relevance of Human Rights

It should also be noted that Rawls (2003: 13) acknowledges the importance of
"human rights" as well. He writes: "A just world order is perhaps best seen as a
society of peoples, each people maintaining a well-ordered and decent political
(domestic) regime, not necessarily democratic but fully respecting basic human
rights." Human rights are expansive and include rights in the following areas:
general freedom; dignity; life; liberty; security; equality before the law; fair and
public hearings by independent and impartial tribunals; presumption of innocence
until proven guilty; freedom of movement and residence; right to seek and gain
asylum from persecution; right to a nationality; the right to marry and have a
family; right to own property; freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and
association; the right to participate in government; the right to social security; the
right to work by free choice and to have protection against unemployment; the
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

right to equal pay for equal work; the right to rest and leisure; the right to an
adequate standard of living, including "food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age ..."; the right to
education; the right to participate in the community and "to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits"; the right to the "protection of
the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which [one] is the author." Additionally, people enjoy freedom from
slavery or servitude; torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment; discrimination; arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; arbitrary
interference with privacy; among many others.[5]

How to Use Rawls' Theory

We can use Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" to determine if any process or
outcome is consistent with social justice. When a process or outcome does not
comport with any of Rawls' principles, we can conclude that it is not consistent
with social justice. That is, something is not consistent with Rawls' conception of
social justice if it interferes with any person's indefensible claims to equal basic
liberties (the "equal liberties principle"); or if inequalities in society are not
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity (the "equal opportunity principle"); or if inequalities in society are not
arranged to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the
"difference principle").
This theory can be used to assess any government policy or social condition to
determine if it is consistent or inconsistent with this theory of social justice. Thus,
any government policy or social condition can be judged as consistent or
inconsistent with social justice based on whether it is consistent or inconsistent
with Rawls' principles of social justice.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

David Miller
Goal of the Book
David Miller posits a pluralistic and circumstantial theory of social justice that is
built around those principles of justice that people actually hold.[6] The theory
can be considered pluralistic or circumstantial because different parts of his
conception of social justice are more or less relevant depending on the
circumstances (Miller, 2003: 62-63). That is, social justice depends on the
context of given situations.
Millers' (2003: ix) goal was to discover those principles people actually use when
judging whether parts of society are just or unjust. Miller created his theory from
public opinion polls and studies of public opinion with regard to different elements
of justice. He does this in part because, while social justice must be "critical" in
nature so that changes toward more fairness in society can be achieved, it must
not be utopian. That is, it must be supported by citizens and can realistically be
achieved.
It is important to note that Miller finds that people's views of justice are actually
pluralistic in that they are determined by the context of a situation (Miller, 2003:
62-63). This suggests that whether something is judged as just or unjust depends
not only on the principles of justice that people hold but also in part on the nature
of the situation. For example, individuals at work might generally be motivated by
recognition for their own contributions (merit), in group situations there is usually
more of a focus on recognition for everyone on the team, especially when the
group is made up of a close-knit group of individuals (equality) (Miller, 2003: 6465).

What is Social Justice?

To Miller, social justice deals with the distribution of good (advantages) and bad
(disadvantages) in society, and more specifically with how these things should be
distributed within society. Further, social justice is concerned with the ways that

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

resources are allocated to people by social institutions (Miller, 2003: 11). Some of
the advantages relevant for social justice include money, property, jobs,
education, medical care, child care, care for the elderly, honors and prizes,
personal security, housing, transportation, and opportunities for leisure. Some of
the disadvantages include military service, dangerous work, and other hardships.
Keep in mind that Miller's theory applies to both public goods as well as private
commodities (Miller, 2003: 10).
Whether something is just or unjust thus depends on whether advantages and
disadvantages are distributed appropriately in society. Miller (2003: 1) explains
that when "we attack some policy or some state of affairs as socially unjust, we
are claiming that a person, or more usually a category of persons, enjoys fewer
advantages than that person or group of persons ought to enjoy (or bears more
of the burdens than they ought to bear), given how other members of the society
in question are fairing."
Miller clearly points out that, when considering policies to allocate advantages
and disadvantages, we must not judge them based on how they benefit us
personally: "Justice is about assigning benefits whose values are established by
their worth to the relevant population taken as a whole, and it must be blind to
personal preferences (Miller, 2003: 8, emphasis added). Further, Miller (2003: 22)
says that "justice fundamentally requires us to treat people as equals; or we
should understand justice as what people would agree to in advance of knowing
their own stake in the decision to be reached." Social justice efforts can not
merely be rationalizations of self-interest (Miller, 2003: 87).
To Miller, social justice is a social virtue that pertains to what you are due or
owed, as well as what you owe others (Miller, 2003: 21, 33). It requires that
everyone agrees to treat others as equals in a manner that is not egocentric or
selfish. This does not mean that everyone has to agree on all procedures to bring
about justice, for people generally agree on what justice demands (this is called
the stability of justice) (Miller, 2003: 24).

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Clearly, Miller holds that social justice is much broader than distributive justice
(Miller, 2003: 2) as well as retributive justice or a justice of punishments (Miller,
2003: 3). In terms of criminal justice then, Miller is talking about something much
bigger than the practices of police, courts, and corrections. The theory does
depend on the state, however, for the state is the primary agency capable of
bringing about reform. Further, it is the state that is capable of using force to
make sure people are complying with social justice requirements (Miller, 2003:
19). Some mechanisms used by the state to assure justice or injustice include
property laws, taxes, health care, criminal punishment, etc. (Miller, 2003: 11). The
theory also can be used to judged the state, for not only must individuals comply
with it but so too must the institutions within society. That is, there must be a
culture of social justice (Miller, 2003: 12-13).

Miller's Three Elements of Social Justice: Need, Desert,

and Equality
Miller's theory focuses on the concepts of need, desert, and equality. Need is a
claim that one is lacking is basic necessities and is being harmed or is in danger
of being harmed and/or that one's capacity to function is being impeded (Miller,
2003: 207, 210). Desert is a claim that one has earned reward based on
performance, that superior performance should attract superior recognition
(Miller, 2003: 134, 141). Equality refers to the social ideal that society regards
and treats its citizens as equals, and that benefits such as certain rights should
be distributed equally (Miller, 2003: 232).
It is important to note that need, desert, and equality all refer to outcomes. That
is, this theory is not one of procedural justice, which is separate and distinct
(Miller 2003: 94). Miller claims that procedural justice is important (and it is for
criminal justice processes), but also points out that just procedures will not
necessarily produce just outcomes (Miller, 2003: 96). The good news is there are
four procedures we can follow to increase the odds of a just outcome -- formal
equality, accuracy, publicity, and dignity (Miller, 2003: 99-102).

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

Miller's (2003: 25) theory asserts that whether need, desert, or equality takes
precedence depends on which "mode of human relationship" is being
considered. This is because "we can best understand which demands of justice
someone can make of us by looking first at the particular nature of relationship."
A mode of human relationship refers to the different kinds of relationships that
people have with one another.

Modes of Human Relationships: Solidaristic

Community, Instrumental Associations, and Citizenship
Miller (2003: 26) specifies three basic modes of human relationships, including
the solidaristic community, instrumental associations, and citizenship. A
solidaristic community "exists when people share a common identity as members
of a relatively stable group with a common ethos" (e.g., family relations). In this
mode of human relationships, the principle of distribution according to need is
most relevant: "Each member is expected to contribute to relieving the needs of
others in proportion to ability, the extent of liability depending upon how close the
ties of community are in each case ... Needs will be understood in terms of the
general ethos of the community. Each community embodies, implicitly or
explicitly, a sense of the standards that an adequate human life must meet, and it
is in terms of this benchmark that the much-contested distinction between needs,
which are matters of justice, and mere wants is drawn" (Miller, 2003: 27). Miller is
clear to differentiate needs (meeting what is minimally necessary to avoid harm)
versus wants or preferences (Miller, 2003: 203, 207, 211). Needs are also held to
be community-specific rather than individual-specific and thus can vary across
places (Miller, 2003: 210, 212).
Instrumental associations exist when "people relate to one another in a utilitarian
manner; each has aims and purposes that can best be realized by collaboration
with others" (e.g., economic relations). In this mode of human relationships, the
principle of distribution according to desert is most relevant: "Each person comes
to the association as a free agent with a set of skills and talents that he deploys
to advance its goals. Justice is done when he receives back by way of reward an
equivalent to the contribution he makes. A person's deserts, in other words, are
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

fixed by the aims and purposes of the association to which she belongs; these
provide the measuring rod in terms of which relative contributions can be judged"
(Miller, 2003: 28). Desert is measured based on actual performance rather than
efforts or attributes (Miller, 2003: 134, 137). It assumes that superior performance
(not superior talents) should attract superior reward (Miller, 2003: 141. 146).
Desert lies at the heart of a meritocratic system (Miller, 2003: 177).
Finally, citizenship refers to "members of a political society" in "modern liberal
democracies" who "are related not just through their communities and their
instrumental associations but also as fellow citizens. Anyone who is a full
member of such a society is understood to be the bearer of a set of rights and
obligations that together define the status of citizen." In this mode of human
relationship, the principle of distribution according to equality is most relevant
because everyone in the society is deemed equal in terms of certain rights
(Miller, 2003: 30). Here, every citizen deserves certain equal rights (Miller, 2003:
237).

The Relevance of Human Rights

Because of the citizenship mode, human rights play a significant role in Miller's
theory of social justice. Miller (2003:13) explains that "a central element in any
theory of justice will be an account of the basic rights of citizens, which will
include rights to various concrete liberties, such as freedom of movement and
freedom of speech ... an extensive sphere of basic liberty is built into the
requirements of social justice itself." As introduced earlier, human rights are
expansive and include rights in many areas.

Competing Demands for Need, Desert, and Equality

Miller does not build a theory of social justice that requires one to emphasize
either need, desert, or equality over the others; rather, he presents a theory
whereby the three are in balance with one another. Because people's views
about justice are pluralistic and "very often people decide what a fair distribution
consists of by balancing claims of one kind against claims of another," it follows
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

that "the social context in which the distribution has to be made -- or more
precisely how that context is perceived by those making the judgment -- will
determine which principle stands out as the relevant principle of justice" (Miller,
2003: 63).
A significant issue, though, is which should take precedence when there are
conflicting demands and expectations for processes that aim to accommodate
need, desert, and equality, as well as for outcomes that satisfy need, desert, and
equality. Miller prioritizes need above desert, and desert above equality (Miller,
2003: 247), although he also points out that at times desert can take precedence
over need (as in the case where the needy are not seen as deserving) (Miller,
2003: 76-78). Although Miller spends most of his time discussing desert or merit
(in part because it is likely the most complicated), he is careful to point out that
"[m]erit of any sort should only be allowed to govern the distribution of a certain
range of goods and services, and in particular not those goods and services that
people regard as necessities, such as health care" (Miller, 2003: 200, emphasis
added).

When are Inequalities Unjust?

Miller holds that inequalities in society are at times just. There are at least two
reasons for this. First, economic inequalities that motivate people to strive for
more can sometimes be justified. Second, inequalities may result from differential
claims on merit. That is, those individuals who are more meritorious because of
their performances deserve more than those who are less meritorious because of
their education, skills, and performances (Miller, 2003: 68-70). Yet, Miller (2003:
70) notes that today's economic disparities are not acceptable. Further, he
asserts that citizens believe: 1) the gap between the rich and the poor today is
too large; 2) the bottom wage is not a living wage; and 3) the amount of money
being paid to those at the top have not earned it (Miller, 2003: 71).
To call for a living wage is not to embrace a form of communism or socialism,
rather it is based on the recognition that everyone who is working -- regardless of
job -- deserves a salary to provide for basic necessities. Salaries can still be
SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

based on education level, skill level, degree of responsibility associated with the
job, dangers faced, and so forth (Miller, 2003: 78, 83). This means social justice
is not inconsistent with a market economy (Miller, 2003: 109).

How to Use Miller's Theory

We can use Miller's pluralistic theory of social justice to determine if any process
or outcome is consistent with social justice. When a process or outcome does not
comport with any of Millers' principles, we can conclude that it is not consistent
with social justice. That is, something is not consistent with Miller's conception of
social justice if it interferes with one's necessities or hurts one's capacity to
function, if it interferes with claims based on desert, or if it impedes equal
opportunity or treatment.
This theory can be used to assess any government policy or social condition to
determine if it is consistent or inconsistent with this theory of social justice. Thus,
any government policy or social condition can be judged as consistent or
inconsistent with social justice based on whether it is consistent or inconsistent
with Miller's three principles of social justice.
1.

Rawls (2003: 5-6) develops his theory for a democratic system of

government, and he assumes that society is comprised of a fair system of
social cooperation between free and equal citizens. He also assumes that
society is well-organized and regulated by a public perception of justice.
Further, he assumes that society is guided by rules and procedures that
are publicly recognized and agreed to, that the rules specify fair terms of
cooperation and are rooted in the notion of reciprocity or mutuality so that
each person has a chance to promote his or her own advantage or good.
Thus, his theory is aimed at determining the "political conception of justice
for specifying the fair terms of cooperation between citizens regarded as
fair and equal and as both reasonable and rational ... (Rawls, 2003: 7-8).

2.

This can be called the "equal liberties principle."

3.

This can be called the "equal opportunity principle."

SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICE POWER: Lawful Means

4.

Rawls calls this the "difference principle."

5.

For other examples, see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights, and other similar documents. "A Summary of Agreements
on Human Rights." Retrieved from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

6.

Miller (2003: 4-6) develops his theory for a democratic system of

government, and he assumes that society is a living organism comprised of
individuals, groups, and so forth who believe in social justice because it
specifies the institutional arrangements that allow for full contributions by
and well-being of members of the society. Further, his theory assumes a
bounded society with members; that there are specific institutions to which
the principles of social justice apply; and that the state is the agency
capable of changing structures when necessary.

SOCIAL JUSTICE