THE VARIETIES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

What is justice in a society? How can there be fairness in the allocation of scarce resources in a country?

There are 4 schools of thought:

1.  Egalitarianism = "Justice is equality!"

This view posits that the fairest way to allocate rewards is to aim for equality for all. However, a distinction must be made between equality of opportunity, which is laudable; and equality of outcome, which is impractical.

2. Sufficientarianism = "Justice is when the weakest have enough!"

The thinking behind this view is based on the realization that the real objection to a widening income gap is not so much the outrageous lifestyles of the super-rich nor the size of the gap itself; but rather the deplorable condition of the poor, which might continue unabated even if the gap is made smaller. So, the real problem is not that the poor have less than the rich, but rather that the poor do not have enough resources to be provided with a decent standard of living. This doctrine of sufficiency holds that the aim of social justice is to maximize the number of people who have enough to lead decent lives.

3. Prioritarianism = "Justice is when priority is given to maximize the well-being of the worst-off!"

The prioritarian's focus is on well-being and its augmentation.  The priority doctrine can be seen as a version of welfarism, aiming to boost as much as possible the well-being of the least well-off.  The priority given is inversely proportional to the pre-existing level of well-being, that is, the lower the original level of well-being, the higher the priority given.  Also, the higher the quantum of well-being thus enhanced, the more the doctrine is seen to be successful.

4. Desert = "Justice is when people gain rewards according to what their virtues deserve!"

Here, the desert principle presupposes that an individual's virtues can be easily measured. A further difficulty lies in defining what counts as a virtue and whether different virtues are qualitatively different and therefore people possessing such virtues in different proportions or combinations deserve different levels of rewards. Nonetheless, the aim here is to transfer rewards from those who got more than they deserve to those who deserve more than what they already got.  The drawback of the desert principle is that in a scenario where there is a great disparity in people's virtues, trying to adhere to this principle may possibly mean transfering rewards from the worse off to the better off!  The ludicrous result would then be an increase in inequality.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

In most societies, justice is not based on any one principle as above, but a combination of them.  By what proportion and in which situation is one principle favored over another - that is the perogative of the government of the society in question.

But one fact stands out: most social scientific research seem to indicate that by any measure, the well-being of a society is almost invariably enhanced if pure egalitarianism (first principle) is increased.