Equality and Justice (Part 2)
It's a truism that equality is justice (or justice is equality). But what is equality? Read part 2 of 6.
I developed this series in 2012 when I was in my 20’s trying to clarify my own thoughts on the weighty topic. It was originally published on a blog which is now discontinued.
Read part 1.
Say for example, person A is more endowed mentally (more intelligent) than person B. And B is physically more endowed (stronger) than A. In the world, jobs involving intelligence are rewarded more highly than jobs involving physical strength. Therefore, A makes more money than B.
But B being physically strong can beat A, and snatch his money if he wishes so. In the state of nature that's exactly what would happen.
If B is strong enough to physically defeat A then why would he let A enjoy more benefits/wellbeing, himself remaining poor? Most people would straightaway answer: because we don't live in the state of nature but in a civilized society.
To me, that answer by itself is not sufficient, because it takes for granted the “civilized society”.
In part 1, I said that it is fair when someone who is naturally endowed with more—physical and mental—potential enjoys higher benefits/wellbeing than those he is superior to. This logic seemed perfectly fair with the example I gave there.
In the example here, the difference is instead of one person being both physically and mentally more endowed than the other, one is mentally more endowed and the other is physically more endowed. The same logic, however, can be applied in that the one whose aggregate endowment (physical + mental) is higher than the other should prevail.
That would be just—at least in the state of nature.
Most people would say that in the civilized society we can't allow B to take A's money by force.
Why? I would ask.
Note that I am trying to explain justice (and understand it myself too) from scratch. In this analysis everything has to be accounted for and nothing is to be taken for granted.
Civilized society is not God-given. At some point in time we lived in the state of nature, and through thousands of years the society has evolved to its present state. If in the state of nature B would have prevailed over A (say, on account of his higher aggregate endowment) by physically defeating A, then why in the civilized society (hereafter called society) should he not attack A?
Some would say that society is a mutual agreement, or an implied contract, for peaceful life of higher wellbeing. And living by the rules is for everybody’s benefit.
Really? But B apparently does not benefit. By not taking A’s money by force while he can, B would remain poor, while A would be rich. B would feel unfulfilled and sad. The only way for B to raise his wellbeing is by taking A's money forcefully. So why shouldn't he do so?
If we don't take for granted the conditions of society, a careful analysis should reveal that in order to keep B from attacking A, society has to create incentives for B to not attack A while he can.
This incentivised state would be the state of justice in the society.
To be continued…