SCL 3 NOTES / JUSTICE

Use Only
Teacher: Susan Ong

For

Students

Private

Christian approaches to justice have roots in the Hebrew Scripture. Two words
from the Scriptures are translated by our word justice: misphat and sedakah.
Misphat are particular duties and responsibilities that embody life in covenant with
God and with one another. Sedakah refers to Gods righteousness and hence brings
judgment not on particular acts but on the entire shape of the age. While misphat
may bear some resonances with to give to each what is due, sedakah requires a
far more expansive understanding of justice. Eloquent expression is given to this
expansiveness in prophet Amos denunciation of those who trample the heads of
the poor into the ground: let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an
overflowing stream (Amos 5:24).
Christians are shaped by their understanding of fundamental covenantal
responsibilities and of an overarching righteousness that offers the vision of Gods
reign. Contemporary Christian Theorists tend to follow the call of Amos in seeing
justice as an overflowing stream that will sweep away iniquities.
For philosophers, the grounding of any demands of justice generally lies in a
notion of the well-ordered society (Aristotle) or in an extension of the powers of
reason (Kant). For Christians, the grounding of justice is in remembrance. What is
right or just derives from the original intentions of a loving creator and from the
acts of that Creator toward the creation. As we remember those saving acts (e.g. in
the Last Supper, the words of institution often are Do this in remembrance of me),
we are oriented towards God and Gods intentions for the human community.
What then, are Gods intentions? We are created for shalom, for a harmony of
wholeness, peace and justice. In Roman Catholic tradition, this divine law is
understood to be reflected in natural law, which can be discerned by reason and is
interpreted through the teaching function of the Church. For both Protestants and
Catholics, whatever their method for discerning Gods will, the grounding for justice
lies in Gods creating, redeeming, and sustaining act. Justice is the human response
of gratitude for these great gifts.
In Christian tradition, therefore, justice is primarily determined by God. Justice
has to do with fulfilling the demands of relationships. Human justice is intended to
reflect the divine justice and is not created solely by human community. One can
see the possible conflict between such a view and the stress on individual rights
that permeate contemporary liberal tradition. While rights are sometimes affirmed
in Christian approaches to justice, these rights are always understood within the
larger framework of an emphasis on the common good.
The Christian affirmation that we are fallen or that sin pervades the world
means that the original intended sedakah or righteousness has been broken or
violated. One of the primary manifestations of sin is injustice. Because the world is
1

permeated with injustice, justice is corrective or reparative it is dominated by the

principle of redress or setting things right. To speak of justice is to focus on ways of
restoring right relationships.
In one sense, to give to each what is due might be seen as establishing right
relations. The prophets of the Hebrew Scripture denounced the rich for trampling
the faces of the poor into the dust, so the early Church Fathers saw the rich as
robbers who kept bread that belonged to the hungry. Contemporary liberation
theologians and feminist theologians are particularly strong in stressing how the
personal influenced the political, social, economic, etc. how the individual pain and
suffering reflected structural injustices of the larger, political, economic, and social
systems. A Christian approach to justice therefore begins with the recognition of
structural problems and of oppression.
Because of the centrality of oppression to Christian discussions of justice, the
poor become the litmus test of justice. The central recognition that justice has to do
with how systems and structures work means that the measures of justice and
injustice become the plight of the poor and the oppressed. If some are going
hungry, then there must be inequality and injustice somewhere in the system. From
this perspective, discussions of justice are not simply about what should be
distributed to whom, but also about who has the power to make those decisions and
to determine the standards by which justice is assessed. Justice is not simply the
proper distribution of goods, but must include attention to the creation of goods, the
participation of all in decision-making processes, and the ratification of historical
injustices.
A Christian concept of justice is posited on a story shared by a faith
community. The vision of a world in which all is in right relation is a vision that could
probably be shared by many, but the particular meaning attached to that vision and
the modes by which it would be brought about promise to remain contentious in a
pluralistic world.
Descriptions of Justice
1. St. Thomas Aquinas: Justice is a habit whereby a person renders to another
what is due through a constant and perpetual will.
2. John Rawls: Justice as fairness.
3. National Conference of Bishops (USA): The obligation to provide justice for all
means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the
conscience of the nation.
Foundations for the Christian Interpretation of Justice1

1 Brady, Bernard V. 1998. The Moral Bond of Community. Washington DC, Georgetown
University Press. Pp. 90-123.
2

The Bible begins with a narrative, a story. The story tells us what is at stake in life.
It tells us about God and it tells us about people. It describes a relationship between
God and people. In doing so, it sets up the conditions for the possibility of the moral
life. We are called ...sometimes we do not listen. This simple story is much more
powerful than a philosophical discussion on human nature. Reflection on the
image of God in the creation text gives us some insights. What then is the reality
revealed in the image of God text? The text indicates that we, Gods stand-ins on
earth are multidimensional and have a relational nature as well as an individual
nature. The very being of a person is bound to his relationship to God, to other
persons, and to nature. As Gods responsible representatives, the creative ordering
of the world has become something that humanity cannot only witness and
celebrate but something in which it can also take part. This all suggests the
following:
1. Humans are social beings. The destiny of every person is bound with the lives
of many other persons. Indeed, as Genesis 1:26 states, the image of God is
in the male and female together.
2. Humans are part of creation; not separate from, but in relation to, creation.
Humans have the responsibility to protect and maintain the earth as God
would protect and care for the earth. Humans moreover, are not the sole
bearers of intrinsic value. The goodness of creation, according to the text,
preceded the creation of persons.
3. Humans are responsible. Each person, like the man and the woman in the
second creation story, is responsible to God. Each person is responsible for
ones actions. Each person is responsible for other people and nature.
4. There is an essential equality among humans. The image of God is prior to
individual merit, achievements, social status, race, gender, economic
resources, or any other non-essential aspect of the person. This affirmation
has significant moral implications for issues of human equality as well as for
the exalted view or sacredness of persons.
These four points are the foundations for Christian interpretation of justice.
Persons, you and I, people in power, and people, who are vulnerable, are social,
related to creation, responsible, and fundamentally equal.
The basic elements for such conceptual vision of justice would be as follows:
1. An account of justice will look for results and consequences but it will not give
in to the principle that only results matter.
2. An account of justice will be framed within the notion of responsibility. Justice
must be understood as a relational term referring to right relations between
persons and between persons and institutions and nature/environment.
Justice is the moral bond that holds relationships together.
3. An account of justice includes a consideration of human rights the minimum
moral protection of persons in community.
4. While it is appropriate to speak of a just or unjust person and a just or unjust
law, justice is about ethics of being as much as it is about the ethics of
3

doing. It is also about individuals as much as it is about society and

structures.
5. Justice refers to all and protects all. It has a critical eye turned toward
oppression and injustice and thus, in those contexts calls for liberation.
6. Justice must not be construed in an excessively rational and calculating way.
It is constituted by compassion.
7. Human life is life in community. Justice is bond that holds communities
together.
Finally, we must be reminded that there is more to morality than justice. In the
words of Philip Selznick, justice does not only invoke the noblest human virtues
love, sympathy, courage, self-sacrifice; it is not only a promise of moral perfection.
In the traditional discussion of virtues, justice is but one of the four cardinal virtues.
Yet what would society look like if love and self-sacrifice were the rule with
adjudicating vision of justice expressed particularly in the values of fairness and
equality?
Justice holds a prominent and indeed a privileged place in any
consideration of morality. Aristotle, for example, regards justice as the highest of
all virtues. We will examine particular relationships and suggest characteristics of
justice.
Categories of Justice
1. Interpersonal justice refers to our responsibilities to others with whom we are
in close relationships such as friendships, family.
2. Commutative justice our responsibilities to others based on professional
relationships, employment relationships, or relationships based on exchanged of
material goods.
3. Distributive justice the responsibility of society through the government to
allocate resources and spread its burden fairly.
4. Communal justice the responsibility of individuals, groups, businesses, and
other institutions within society to pursue and promote the common good.
5. Social justice the responsibility of persons to promote the well-being of the
vulnerable especially through the critique of established social structures and
social institutions.
INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE
Friendship is a common experience among people. We all have friends, we
talk about our friends, and the meaning of friendship. This experience can be a
common ground for us to consider related issues (e.g. family life). Moreover,
friendship is a good thing and friendship is a condition for human flourishing, thus it
is a moral category, an idea demanding moral reflection.
Justice is an essential aspect of friendship. Just observe some children playing,
and at times, this play session is interrupted or even terminated by claims that one
4

child was treating another unjustly. This shows how fragile relationships can be.
Friendships do not just happen. They depend on things namely particular actions,
attitude, and words. These are the core of justice in friendship.
Characteristics of friendship (according to Paul Wadell)
1. Benevolence
If we are somebodys friend, we seek their good and work for their well-being.
Friendship is not simply a state of being, nor is at merely a feeling for another.
Friends do not simply like each other; they seek the good of the other. A friend
actively wishes for the best in the friend and acts on behalf of the friend.
2. The second characteristic of friendship is partnership. In order for a relationship
to be a friendship, it must be mutual. Friendship is not a one way street; the
benevolence must be returned. There are many relationships marked by
benevolence that are not mutual. A teacher may care for his students but his
students may not care for him. Friendships are characterized by mutuality.
3. The third characteristic of friendship is: friends share similar vision, ideals, and
values. They mirror each others fundamental interests, principles, and values.
Every friendship is forged around some good that brings the friends together.
Our friends while not identical to us, are like us in significant ways. There is a
famous saying that would describe this: Birds of the same feather flock
together.
4. Trust
5. Respect
6. Constancy
Friendship is just one of the relationships that is characterized by a deep level of
commitment. This type of relationship would include marriage relationship, parentchild relationship, and close relationships. In all these relationships involved an
experience of love as well as commitment. Margaret Farley (in her book Personal
Commitment) ventures a working description of love as an affective affirmation
which is responsive and unitive. The essential sign of love, she writes, is that I do
the deeds of love insofar as they are called for and possible. She notes however,
that this description is not sufficient. Alone it does not give us insights into how we
should rightly love the other. After all, we can love wrongly. How can this be so? A
father can love a son merely as a projection of himself. A woman could love a man
merely for how he makes her feel. There may be love (strong affection for the
other). In these relationships, but the love is misdirected or immature. In both
examples, the basis of love and perhaps the relationship seems to be the persons
self-interest and not the good of the other. How are we then to love the other
rightly? Farley uses the moral category, justice, to answer this question. She
5

writes, the norm of right love is the concrete reality of the beloved. A just love
(or you might say true love) demands that we love the reality of the other person or
to love the person as he/she is with all his/her strengths and weaknesses. We love
them, as the saying goes for who and what they are. In relation to our example
mentioned, we can say, a love that fails to affirm the childs dignity as a person
worthy of respect and love is a false love. A just love demands that we affirm the
essential aspects of the person loved. These aspects are as follows:
1. Just love requires recognition of the person loved as a unique individual. This
person I love is a person with special needs, desires, and characteristics. He also
stands in a unique and particular relationship with me.
2. Just love requires that we see the person loved as a person and take into
account the respect due to the person as a person. How often we have seen
people who say they love one another yet treat their beloved with less respect.
Basic human respect for the beloved should not be downplayed in relationships.
3. In the nature of friendship, in the nature of love, indeed in the nature of any
human relationship, lies vulnerability (susceptibility to, open to attack, being
defenceless). What I mean by this is, when I open myself up to you, I am hoping
and trusting that you respond to me with respect. However, you can brush me
off, you can ignore me; you can put me down; at worse, you can betray me. The
time-honoured definition of justice as giving what is due to the person implies
this vulnerability (or unequal power relationship). The term justice implies
restoring equality or correcting a wrong or insuring a right relationship among
people. If I am to act gently toward you, if I am to give you what you are due,
then I am in a position to decide or at least administer something to you. The
ball is in my court, so to speak. But before this justice is enacted or restored,
there are offers of opportunity for injustice, of domination, and violence. You are
vulnerable to my response. The state of being vulnerable, to harm, confers on
one legitimate claims to treatment. How will I respond? To act justly is to
confirm the bond that exists between us. Will I grant you the respect you
deserve as a person? Will I affirm your worth as a unique person? Therefore, we
can say that we cannot truthfully love another person without that love being
formed and informed by justice. Justice demands the recognition of the
uniqueness of the person as well as the fundamental humanness of the person.
Learning to be Just
We ask the question: How does one come to have moral questions? Where
does one learn to be just? Where does one learn to love? Paul Wadell (in his book
The Primacy of Love) answers these questions in his discussion about friendship.
He believes that good friendships are schools of virtues.
Good friends draw
goodness out of us. We learn how to love and how to be just as we build our
friendships. If we learn goodness and virtues from friends, the opposite must also
be true. We can also learn vices from friends. This indicates the importance of
choosing and befriending wisely. Deciding who will be our friends is perhaps the
most significant moral choice we make.
6

On the other hand, we must admit that friendships are not the first schools of
virtues. I think you agree with me that we learn to understand love and justice first
from our families. The family is the primary school for the moral life. The
narratives/stories of our families and the stories of the lives of persons in our
families teach us our first lessons about giving to one what is due. We learn what
it means to give, to love.
We learn about the different functions within
relationships in the family. We practice understanding of what it means to give
another what is due and we carry these lessons with us in relationships beyond the
family. As John Paul II writes, It is from family that citizens come to birth and it is
within the family that find the first school of social virtues that are the
animating principles the existence and development of society itself.
The lived experiences of families are models of justice. However, a family can
also be the place where injustice is fostered.
Characteristics of Justice
The reflection on friendship and committed relationships gives us a strong
foundation to consider the nature of justice. It suggests five characteristics of
justice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice

is a foundational, moral element of relationships

begins in hearts and minds of people
is expressed in and through action
is not a one-time event, it is a process
restores relationships

Justice is the foundational, moral element of relationships

Justice is a bond, a moral bond that holds relationships together. You can only
be involved in a true friendship if you treat the other justly. It is however, not the
only bond that can hold relationships together. We know that domination,
manipulation, intimidation, and even abuse can keep people together.
A
dysfunctional family can live in the same house. These are bonds other than moral
bonds for a relationships; that is why we name them dysfunctional families or
destructive relationships. We know, however, it does not have to be this way.
Friendships, intimate relationships and families ought to foster personal flourishing.
Justice is the moral category to describe the conditions for this possibility.
Justice begins in the hearts and minds of people
Justice (or injustice for that matter) is not first and foremost something out
there nesting in some nameless and faceless social structure or cultural attitude.
Justice (or injustice) begins in the hearts and minds of people. It is a matter of
7

choice and personal determination. It is, to use the traditional language, a virtue, a
habitual character trait.
Justice is expressed in and through action
The just person does not simply think about right relationships and giving
others what is their due, the just person acts for the good of the other. The
appropriateness of these actions as well as the moral demand arises from the
nature of relationships.
Justice is not a one-time event, it is a process
A friend is not honest to the friend only on one occasion. A friend treats the
other all the time.
Justice restores relationships
Sometimes in a friendship, as in all other relationships in life, you have to
make things right.
Justice determines what is to be done to repair the
relationships. Justice, then, is that personal trait, exhibited/expressed in both
actions and attitudes that responds to the concrete reality of another. It is the
moral bond that holds relationships together.
COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE
Commutative justice refers to our responsibilities to other based on
professional relationships, employment relationships, or relationship based on the
exchange of material goods.
Families are more complex than friendships. While families have an integrity
of their own, they function within other spheres of human relationships. Families
are not only communities of love, they are economic, social, and political units. As
such, they are affected by and indeed affect other social institutions. Thus, when
people reflect on the relationship between justice and family, they consider broader
areas of justice namely, the justice of institutions, the justice of social practices
within which family live. We often hear, for example, of the effects of crime,
violence and the drug culture on family life. The workplace, unemployment, as well
as other demands of the market, including consumerism, have had indelible effects
on the modern family. Social policy, institutions, and social practices affect the
well-being and flourishing of families. That is to say, the justice of the broader
areas of human relationships affect the conditions for justice within the family.
Most of the time we spend in relationships with others which does not occur in
friendship or family life. Living propels us into many other types of relationships.
8

The second sphere of relationships to consider is that set of relationships beyond

our friends, family and committed lover. I am thinking about relationships to
people with whom we have regular contact but not close to (emotionally involved
with)), namely relationships in school, workplace, clubs, teams, organizations, and
so forth. It is within this sphere of relationships that we append most of our waking
hours. The rules of these relationships are very different from the rules of
friendship and family. These relationships are based on employment and particular
interests. They are combination of voluntary and involuntary arrangements. That
is, while you may choose to work at a certain company, you do not necessarily pick
your co-workers and your boss.
These relationships fall within commutative justice, that is, relationships
between individuals within society. The model for this type of justice is an
economic exchange or transactions between private individuals. Private here
means that the public or society or government is not involved in this
relationships.
Commutative justice is concern with relationships which bind
individual to individual in the sphere of private transactions. 2 The original context
for this type of justice was the farmer bringing his produce to the market. It would
be unjust for him to overcharge a customer or cheat on the weight or quality of
products. Thomas Aquinas, for example, talks about just price for the products as
well as the sellers responsibility for the products sold to the customers.
Commutative justice arbitrates conflicts and arise from contracts or promises in the
sphere of private interaction.3 Jon Gunnemann4 writes, Commutative justice is
rooted in the fundamental moral obligation against harm. In exchange, harm is
avoided when there is equivalence of exchange, harm is done when there is no
equivalence.
The problem is to determine the equivalence.
The National
Conference of Bishops (USA), in a similar voice writes, Commutative justice calls
for the fundamental fairness in all agreement and exchanges between individuals
or private social groups.5 The example the bishops give is workplace related, fair
wages, and appropriate working conditions.
There is much to be taken from this traditional category of justice.
Yet
contemporary life and its complex web of transactions call for a broader
understanding of commutative justice.
2 Hollenbach, David. 1979. Claims and Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic
Human Rights Tradition. New York, Paulist Press. P. 145
3 ibid
4 Gunnemann, Jon. Capitalism and Commutative Justice in Marx Stackhouse, Dennis
McCann, Shirley Roels, eds., On Moaral Business:Classical and Contemporary Resources for
Ethics in Economic Life. Grand Rapids, Mich., William Eardmans Pub. Co. 1995. P.
5 National Conference of the Catholic Bishops of the USA. Economic Justice for All (1986).
#69
9

While we are certainly involved in some private transactions, most of our

transactions are mediated through institutions.
Commutative justice in the
contemporary sense, includes a broad area of relationships, including relationships
that bind individuals to individuals in private transactions as well as relationships
mediated by institutions and regulated by government.
Virtues like justice are characteristics of people. Recall the farmer selling his
produce. He can deliberately try to cheat the buyer or not cheat the buyer. Only
people are truly moral agents. That is, only people have the capacity for selfdetermination that makes them responsible for their actions. When we consider
the role of institutions in our lives, the context becomes more complex. We can say
that institutions can function justly or unjustly. Mary Douglas, an anthropologist
argues, The most profound decisions about justice are not made by individuals as
such, but by individuals thinking within and on institutions. 6 Decisions that
stockholders, managers, and board of directors make on policy and employees
have dramatic effects on peoples lives and on the health of communities.
Institutions, corporations, non-profit organizations, schools and churches are moral
agents in an analogous sense. Institutions do not run themselves. They are run by
and are supported by moral agents individuals thinking and deciding within and
on behalf of institutions. But what is the proper response when governments,
corporations, schools or churches have unjust policies?
John Paul II, speaking on injustices as a sinful condition, offers an insightful and
challenging view of personal responsibility, in the context of social relations. He
writes:
Whenever the Church speaks of situations or sin or when she
condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behaviour
of certain social groups, big or small, even of whole nations and blocs
of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sins
are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many
personal sins. It is the case of the very personal sins. It is the case of
the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who
exploit, of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate, or at least
limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear, or
the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of
those who take charge in the supposed impossibility of changing the
world, and also who side-step the effort and sacrifice required,
producing specious reason of higher order. The real responsibility,
then lies with individuals. A situation or likewise an institutions, a
structure, a society itself is not in itself the subject of moral acts.7
6 Quoted in Bellah, Robert, The Good Society. P. 13.
7 John Paul II. 1987. Solicitudo Rei Socialis. #65
10

Responsibility lies with individuals. Injustice is not something that just happens. Yet
individuals can get lost in or mark their responsibility by being members of groups.
Being a part of large institutions is yet another way our contemporary culture
downplays personal responsibility.
Commutative justice refers to our responsibilities to others based on
professional relationships, or relationships of exchange of material goods, or
employment relationships.
It includes buyer-seller relationship of traditional
societies as well as more complex relationships within and between modern
bureaucratic institutions. Injustice in this sense arise then when a contract or
agreement has been violated or when some form of violence, oppression, theft or
abuse occurs. Some injustice is resolved through the courts or mediation.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE and COMMON GOODS

We are, however, more individuals; we are members of communities large or
small. The nature of being in community requires justice, and justice is the moral
bond that holds communities together. The other remaining forms of justice
distributive, communal, and social are understood within our communal
relationships. They deal with the various responsibilities of life in community and
the common of members of the community.
Distributive justice refers to what the community acting through the
government, owes individual members. It reflects on the distribution of social
benefits and burdens to individuals. Questions of distributive justice surrounds our
lives and are the course of serious debates. Consider the state where we live which
is characterized by one large metropolitan area, and a large expansive areas that
include smaller cities, towns, farms, and natural resources. State legislators are
always debating appropriate allocations of funds which areas of the state ought to
get what percentage of the budget?
Which population group (seniors, the
unemployed, children, poorest of the poor, etc.) ought to get what percentage of the
financial support from the state/government?
These are some questions of
distributive justice. The government is morally obliged to distribute public goods
fairly to promote the common good. Distributive justice then, has its object
common good, goods often limited or scarce that are not wholly owned by any
individual but are necessary for human well-being.
The key word offered by commentators on distributive justice from Aristotle on
is proportional. Common goods and social burdens ought to be proportionately
distributed. Funding decisions made every year have to be made with respect to
the history of previous decisions and with an eye toward future possibilities. It
would be impossible to state a once-and-for all rule to follow.
Proportional distribution also refers to the allocation of social burdens.
Communities have to solve a variety of unpopular problems. Where does the
garbage dump or landfill go? Which community or area will host the new garbage
11

landfill, etc.? Who faces the burden of the new zoning laws? Distributive justice
refers not only to the common goods, but also the inconveniences and sacrifices
that are part of the community life. It is in the same realm of distributive justice to
analyse the tax system. Is the tax structure fair? Do all incomes of people pay
taxes proportionally? Social benefits and burdens ought to be fairly and
proportionately distributed.
It is impossible to develop a definitive list of universal goods relevant to every
culture. Given a particular context and culture, there are at least four sets of
common goods namely: fundamental human goods, public goods, communal goods,
and procedural goods. Let us look clearly at each of these goods.
1. Fundamental Human Goods
This set includes basic nutrition, security (from not so good elements as well
as from aggressors), and basic freedom (like freedom of speech and freedom of
religion). These are common goods because they are commonly valued by persons
and they provide the necessary conditions for persons to flourish. Thus, the moral
imperative: Every person ought to have the minimal nutritional requirements met,
and basic security needs met as well basic freedom. The government has the
responsibility to oversee the distribution of these goods. In a healthy economy,
most people are able to meet their nutritional and housing needs. Society through
the government, ought to develop safety net to those who are unable to meet
these needs. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that freedom are
respected and that security needs are met. The absence of fundamental human
goods is poverty. The interference with persons having these goods is oppression.
Think about living without these goods. What if you and your family are not able to
enjoy these goods but your neighbours had them in excess? These goods are the
moral minimums, the cornerstone of human flourishing. They are also the grounds
for justification and explication of basic human rights. Fair distribution of these
goods is a necessary condition for the good of society.
2. Public Goods
This set includes parks, roads, the physical structures of the community, the
air, the water, the land, the environment. Who owns these? In a sense we all do,
yet no one really owns them. Public goods require direct action by the government
to ensure their protection and development. Decisions about these goods are best
reserved for the morally responsible government acting for the common good. We
cannot count on market mechanisms or private individuals to fairly distribute
playgrounds, streets, highways, and sewers, etc. nor can we count on the market or
business corporations to protect the air, water, etc. Public goods, if they are to be
developed, protected, and truly public, ought to be under the control of the
organization that is directly responsible for the promotion of the common good,
namely the government. Repressive government have characteristically distributed
such goods unfairly.
12

3. Communal Goods
This set includes such elements as social traditions, the modes of
communication in community, as well as the communitys history, culture, and
language. Distributive justice asks such questions: Who keeps them? How do we
preserve and communicate them?, etc. Who writes the history? In the Philippines,
we have government institutions responsible for this set of goods namely, the
National Historical Institute (NHI), National Commission on Culture and Arts (NCCA),
National and local museums, National and local libraries.
4. Procedural Goods
This set contains the practices of the general functions of society, such as law,
political participation, and education. Procedures are marked by varying degrees of
opinions and exclusion, access and denial, participation and domination. A key term
here is participation. Are the channels of social participation open to all? Who
can vote? Who can receive an education? Distributive justice asks such basic
questions as, is the law fair? Do the law and court trials treat similar cases similarly?
Is there equal treatment under the law and equal access to the law? Distributive
justice examines how the procedural goods are distributed throughout society.
Systems may be in place that discriminate against certain groups of people. Rights
here are rights to fair treatment and access.
A theory of distributive justice seeks to offer rational justification for
decisions/choices concerning allocation of such goods which are open to public
scrutiny. As such it challenges arbitrary decision as well as discriminatory practices.
Analysing patterns of the distribution of these four sets of common goods gives an
indication how just or unjust a community is. It helps us gauge the levels of
freedom and opportunity as well as oppression and repression within societies.
COMMUNAL JUSTICE
Communal justice reverses the equation of distributive justice. To paraphrase
the famous words of President John Kennedy (USA), asks not what my
community/country can do for me, but rather what I can do for my community
/country. If the first principle of commutative justice is to do no harm, the first
principle of communal justice is to contribute. Communal justice recognizes that
while the governments sole existence is to serve the common good, it is not solely
the responsibility of the government to promote the common good. All members of
society have a proportionate responsibility to serve the community. Communal
justice compliments distributive justice, each member of the community owes
something to all the rest, and the community owes something to each of its
members.
13

When we speak of interpersonal, commutative, and distributive justice, we are

usually speaking about responsibility to and for certain people. Responsibility in
communal justice is harder to specify. With communal justice we are speaking of
responsibility, not to only to individuals as such but to the community as a whole.
The responsibilities of communal justice can be explored through the four sets of
common goods described earlier/above.
Fundamental Human Goods
Amitai Etzioni describes general responsibilities related to these goods as he
writes, Members of the community have responsibility, to the greatest extent
possible, to provide for themselves and their families honourable work which
contributes to the commonwealth and to the communitys ability to fulfil its
essential tasks. Beyond self-support, individuals have a responsibility for the
material and moral well-being of others. This does not mean heroic self-sacrifice; it
means the constant self-awareness that no one of us is an island unaffected by the
fate of others.8
The production of material fundamental human goods (food, clothing, shelter) is not
primarily the job of the government. It is the role of the individuals and the private
sector. Thus if a company produces a good product, market it appropriately, and
pays its employees a living wage, it makes a significant contribution to be good of
the community. This can be done in a number of ways. Persons can contribute to
charitable organizations; they can volunteer; or they involved in community
projects. Professions and organizations ought to contribute their talent and specific
expertise for the common good. Communal justice is perhaps best illustrated
during times of crisis. People have a natural tendency to kick in and help those in
need. They feel responsible for the well-being of others and the community.
Public Goods
If the distribution of public goods essentially lies in the hands of the
government, the initiation of projects and the protection, preservation of such
goods, however, often depends on the actions and attitudes of individuals.
Individuals make the choice, for example, to litter, to pollute, to vandalize, etc., and
to use resources inappropriately.
Communal Goods
Communal justice entails an ethics of being as much as ethics of doing.
This ethics of being includes a willingness to make positive contributions to the
common good as well as a willingness to tolerate differences and respect others. In
this multicultural society with its wealth of different perspectives and ideologies, this
is challenging and necessary. For us Filipinos, it is a big challenge for us to know,
8 Etzioni, Amitai. The Spirit of Community. P. 263
14

appreciate, and value our history, social traditions, our culture, etc. because this is
part of our identity as a people.
Procedural Goods
Simply understood, communal justice requires that persons participate in the
society for the common good. For example, people ought to pay right taxes, and to
be informed participants in the political process aside from dutifully following rules,
regulations, and laws, and our cooperation to any project of community for the
common good.
Communal justice encourages persons to be involved in
intermediary institutions (like civic, religious, non-government organizations).
Indeed, this is probably the most effective form of social transformation. Strong
communities writes Philip Selznick9, are institution-centered.
There one finds
cohesion/unity and moral competence derive from the strength and integrity of
families, schools, parties, government agencies, voluntary associations, and law.
A final word on communal justice is that while it supports individuals and
organizations, it always looks to the good of the larger. It pursues message that
smaller groups/tribes as part of the greater whole. Communal justice is understood
in the daily action and attitude that persons and groups have as members of the
community. It compliments distributive justice as it expects all members of society
to proportionately contribute to the common good.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social justice has its object not on particular relationships but general patterns of
social relationships and social interaction. There is a need for a form of justice that
responds to, reviews, and evaluates (so as to defend, reject, or amend) social
policies, institutions, and structures. This is the realm of social justice.
Earlier in this section, justice was defined as that personal trait, exhibited in
both ones actions and attitudes that responds to concrete reality of another. It is
the moral bond that holds relationships together. It has already been suggested that
relationships could be held together on non-moral bonds violence and the threat of
severe punishment might have been the bond that held many slaves to their
owners. Social justice demands that the concrete reality of the vulnerable members
of community be respected and uplifted. In the normal workings of government and
the market, people with power are more able to control the outcomes. In contrast
to this, children do not vote, the homeless have no economic power, and in times of
war and unrest, the lives of innocent people are put at risk in the face of military
objective. Social justice looks at the big picture of social relationships from the
perspective of the poor, marginalized, and powerless. It recognizes, moreover, that
human choice concerning actions and attitude is expressed in social structures and
social practices.
9 Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, p. 370.
15

Social justice seeks not only to address the symptoms of injustices, but the
cures as well. It asks why people are without food or hungry?
Why many people
are homeless? Why there is violence at this particular time in this particular place?
Social justice then, is dependent on social analysis. Wide gap between the rich and
poor, marginalization, high percentage of illiteracy, poverty, etc. are just some
faces/expressions of social injustices.
Social injustices cannot be solved by
individuals, private organizations, businesses, or the government alone.
The
participation of each is necessary but not sufficient. Responsibility to address and
resolve injustice runs wide and deep. Responsibility cuts across society, thus the
notion of social justice in distinction to personal or individual justice. The
formal organizing element of society, the government, or the state has a significant
but not exclusive responsibility to address these concerns, indeed the government
itself might be, and often is the target of social justice reforms.
Social justice then, is the responsibility of all to promote the well-being of the
vulnerable (e.g. the powerless, the poor) particularly through the critique of
established social structures and social institutions. In the concept of social justice
then, we see the unification of two moral ideas. The dominant justice concern of the
eighth century prophets how the poor and the powerless fare in the society is
combined with the modern notion that social structures and institutions can be and
ought to be changed so as to promote the common good.

16