Economic Justice Outcome and Opportunity

Is it fair that some citizens are economically advantaged over others?

Alexander Banh 6349542 Professor: Christine Sypnowich Tutorial Assistant: Ayesha Shah PHIL153 ~ The State and the Citizen

The Census Bureau of the United States spends millions of dollars each year empirically

measuring poverty, producing statistics such as: overall poverty is expected to increase from 13.2% to 15.8%.1 In reality, these arbitrary numbers do not give any insight into the cause of economic inequality, nor is knowledge gained about whether this economic inequality is justied. Our current state of economic and political organization in democratic North America attempts to provide equal opportunity to all through public education, health, and welfare systems. Those who are willing to put in the effort to excel in their education and careers, no matter their natural endowments, shortcomings, or uncontrollable circumstances, will be favoured to succeed. However, due to the fact that our society has progressed through so many centuries of economic inequality, some of the present generation have strongly established pools of wealth or social standing predicated on the work or hard-earned nancial assets of their ancestors. And even the die-hard capitalist who strives to become the top of the food chain in the trading pits of New York on a daily basis, may nd this socioeconomic arrangement unfair. This is because there will always be those who are better off, whether it be due to natural capabilities, or due to familial connections. This begs the question: what is the metric of economic fairness? Is it fair that some citizens are economically advantaged over others? This paper will analyze the latter inquiry upon the basis of the egalitarian/socialist, and welfare liberalist schools of thought. This paper will argue that economic inequality is fair, but only based on the metric of equality of opportunity, and only if Rawlsian conditions are applied. Welfare liberalists such as John Rawls bring up points that resonate more with the

capitalist Western society that we live in. Rawls grounds his arguments in two principles of justice, asserting that rstly, each person must have an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with a similar scheme for all.2 Secondly, social and economic inequalities are permissible under two conditions: that offices and positions must be open to all under conditions of fair competition and equal opportunity,
1

Harris, Karen K. Economic Justice. The Shriver Brief, 2010. Web. 18 October 2010.

Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 32-33. Print.

and that inequalities must exist to serve the greatest benet of the least advantaged members of society.3 The latter clause is made possible through avenues such as tax brackets, levying a higher percentage of income tax from those who are better off. The government then uses this collected sum of wealth to provide services which benet the welfare of the worse off, such as public health, public education, unemployment insurance, and so on. This brings us to the rst metric of economic fairness, which emphasizes the equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or ability.4 Relating Rawls two principles back to the current state of the Canadian political and economic framework, it can be seen that both conditions are met. The rst principle is governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom5 , and the second provided by the public services as explained previously. It is true that in some cases, systemic prejudices still occur to hinder the progress of certain marginalized groups. However, with the rise of an African American president in the United States, the supernatural growth of developing economies like China, India, and Brazil, the global trends tend towards a more cosmopolitan society that recognizes individuals for their ability, not their race; providing equal opportunity to all. Using an example closer to home, current nancial mogul Warren Buffett started as nothing more than the son of a grocer.6 It is only through his willingness to learn, passion for his chosen eld, and undying work ethic that has propelled him so far up in the ranks of the capitalist society.7 Rockefeller, Chiang Kai-Shek, Dickens, the list goes on, of individuals who have risen from poverty to the upper echelons of society, with or without the luxury of the equalized opportunities we have today. Rawls chief purpose in outlining this symbiotic relationship between the wealthy and the less wealthy is to avoid what he regards as the major drawback of utilitarian or consequentialist thinking; namely, that such thinking can sanction the sacrice or neglect of individual interest for the sake of a greater good. That is altruism, not
3

Ibid. Equality of Opportunity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002. Web. 19 October 2010. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Department of Justice Canada. 1982. Web. 20 October 2010. Warren Buffett: A Sage That Knows His Onions. The Economist. 2008. Web. 20 October 2010. Ibid.

justice. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is fair, and that the majority of economic inequality is developed through adept use of the equalized opportunities that are quite literally available at a ngers touch away. However, those who truly believe in economic fairness as purely constituting the perfectly equal distribution of income, also make valid points. The second school of thought consists of those who believe that economic equality is

solely predicated on the ownership, distribution and allocation of primary goods and resources. This mainstream egalitarian argument stipulates that economic justice lies not in the equity of opportunity, basing their metric on the equality of outcomes 8. Abiding by this metric, it is impossible to achieve economic equality unless the state interferes to equalize income; beneting the worse off at the expense of the wealthy, which necessitates a deviation from faculties such as meritocracy.9 Therefore, given the previously outlined current state of our society, it is, supercially, unfair that some citizens are economically advantaged over others. There are two possible avenues to combat said inequality, rst, the shortcut of ravaging

the current state of affairs in a coup, then subsequently redistributing all wealth evenly. Second, to adopt a stance like utopian socialist Robert Owen. He asserts that an individuals whole character is formed independently of himself.10 Therefore humans, in any conditions, can be reeducated; taught or bred in a certain manner to foster altruism, using his experiments in New Lanark as a precedence.11 However, when this reeducation plan is brought onto the national setting, or even the world stage, it necessitates a paradigm shift that cannot realistically be ascertained. A personal argument stems from the fact that longstanding foundations of economic

inequality already exist. We must base our metric upon that which has already been established, not, like Owen, to wish upon a unrealizable paradigm, or to attempt to overthrow all currently
8

Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. Introduction: Social Primary Goods and Capabilities as Metrics of Justice. Measuring Justice. Ed. Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 1-13. Print.
9

Equality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002. Web. 19 October 2010.

10

Owen, Robert. The Principles of the Former Essays Applied to Government. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 112-113. Print.
11

Ibid.

existing faculties and institutions which foster equality of opportunity. Is it fair to those who are well-off now to strip them of their hard-earned success in order to benet those who cannot make use of already equalized opportunity? I think not. Moreover, it can also be argued that different people have different relative needs hence eliminating the equal distribution of primary goods and the equality of outcomes theory as viable. Those who are rich or nancially successful are required to have higher expenditures. At the risk of absurdity, an example of the above would be how corporations or most, if not all extremely wealthy individuals upholding their public images by creating charitable foundations or donating to charitable organizations. This is as much a necessity to corporations as their labour force, as the difference between a prot and a loss can be the result of public image. This is also another example of Rawlsian distributive justice, where these superuous riches are redistributed in a symbiotic manner to the less well-off. Not only does the egalitarian position take little note of the diversity of human beings and the diversity of their needs and goals, it is extremely unrealistic in the sense that no practical solution can result from it. At the end of the day, even if mainstream egalitarians can logically and emotionally prove that disparities amongst the wealth of citizens is fundamentally unfair, there is little that can be done about it. As a result, it can be concluded that this metric, insofar as it is optimistic and morally sound, is also extremely unrealistic, and as such, should not be used. A counterargument manifests in the form that natural capabilities have not been taken

into account, and with good reason, seeing that the above arguments are based mainly upon Rawlsian theory, and Rawls believes that natural capabilities should be irrelevant in ones political philosophies. One factor is missing: luck. What happens to those who are uncontrollably born into squalid conditions, or with physical or mental disabilities? Rawls' work explains why the concept of luck has had a central place in discussions of justice in an inuential section of his A Theory of Justice, where he introduces the metaphors of the social and natural lotteries.12 The underlying idea is that every person's starting point in society is the

12

Justice and Bad Luck. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008. Web. 20 October 2010.

outcome of a social lottery (the political, social, and economic circumstances into which each person is born) and a natural lottery (the biological capabilities each person is born with).13 Hence, since one cannot possibly merit, or deserve, an outcome of this kind, people's starting positions cannot be justied by appeal to meritocratic prowess. This statement inherently contradicts Rawls theory of justice as describe earlier. It also underpins Rawls' claim that a system of equality of opportunity leads to applicants being assessed on their merits alone. Even if society does provide equal opportunity, those who are born with physical or mental disabilities cannot hope of fully utilizing and maximizing said opportunities, and as such distributive shares are improperly inuenced by this birth lottery. John Stuart Mills tyranny of majority manifests in Rawls theories, and this is where we see the inherent injustice of economic inequality for those who are born with less-than-desirable attributes despite equalization of opportunities.14 To recapitulate, it is concluded that: given that the equality of outcome metric of

economic fairness does not generate the possibility of a realistic solution to inequality, it should not be used. The alternative metric is the equality of opportunity, which proves that economic inequality in Western society is to a great extent, fair. However, it does not address the concept of the natural lottery. The framework of this paper has been, rstly, to ascertain a correct metric of fairness. Then, to determine whether there is a practical method of combatting the dened injustice. If there is not, then that metric of justice must not be used as a model, and be once again questioned. Unlike the conventional bottom-up method of analyzing economic equality, which starts from the lower echelons of nancial well-being and attempts to explain the existing poverty, this paper analyzes economic inequality from the top down. This paper has also taken the philosophies of both an 18th century philosopher and 20th century philosopher, and tied them into our current political and economic setting so as to

13

Kelly, Erin. Equal Opportunity, Unequal Capability. Measuring Justice. Ed. Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 61-73. Print.
14

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 17-19. Print.

provide a balance of theoretical and practical discussion. The scope of this paper does not reach past democratic western societies, as that would be too all-encompassing to provide a detailed discussion. However, it must be noted that the entire playing eld does indeed transform, and new metrics of economic fairness must be formulated. The crux of this analysis lies in the emphasis of pragmatics. As philosophers, not only must we aim for the most logically and morally sound theories, but we must also take into account the reality of the situation, to successfully create a balance between scintillating intellectual discussion, and provisions for actionable plans. It is only then, when society as a global unit can even dream of achieving universal equality.

Works Consulted
Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. Introduction: Social Primary Goods and Capabilities as Metrics of Justice. Measuring Justice. Ed. Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 1-13. Print. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Department of Justice Canada. 1982. Web. 20 October 2010. Equality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002. Web. 19 October 2010. Equality of Opportunity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002. Web. 19 October 2010. Harris, Karen K. Economic Justice. The Shriver Brief, 2010. Web. 18 October 2010. Justice and Bad Luck. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008. Web. 20 October 2010. Kelly, Erin. Equal Opportunity, Unequal Capability. Measuring Justice. Ed. Brighouse, Harry., and Robeyns, Ingrid. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 61-73. Print. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 17-19. Print. Owen, Robert. The Principles of the Former Essays Applied to Government. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 112-113. Print. Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. Political Ideologies and Political Philosophies 2nd Edition. Ed. H.B. McCullough.Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. 32-33. Print. Warren Buffett: A Sage That Knows His Onions. The Economist. 2008. Web. 20 October 2010.