Equality and Justice (Part 5)
It's a truism that equality is justice (or justice is equality). But what is equality? Read part 5 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, part 2, part 3 and part 4.
Our behavior shaped by natural urges and inclinations is malleable when we perceive long term benefits of doing so. But there seems to be a limit to how much we can do that, because it's an uphill battle, a tug-of-war with our animal nature.
Moral development, therefore, does not come naturally but requires effort.
Everything can be improved in the long term without resorting to violence and chaos—with moral development. But waiting indefinitely long requires a struggle with our animal nature. There is a snapping point to it.
Morality, therefore, is not black-and-white, as we are constrained by our innate animal nature when acting on a moral path.
If we apply this to our question of whether it is not moral for the physically strong B to require incentives from society to not attack the physically weak A, the answer is yes and no.
We definitely want a society where people can perceive the long term social good, and are willing to sacrifice the short term and individual good to achieve the former.
So the society would strive for such moral development that B doesn't require incentives to not attack A, seeing it as immoral and understanding that in the long term he too can develop himself in ways as to enjoy what A is enjoying today. And society has to make sure that B gets enough opportunities to develop himself in those ways.
We would say that B should not attack A while he can, and nor should he require incentives to keep from attacking A because that would be immoral.
But, but, but—this assumes B is capable of infinitely fighting his animal nature with rationality. In reality, that is not true of anyone!
As I said above, there is a limit to how much we can pull against nature. Rationality can control natural urges and inclinations, but there is a psychological cost to doing so.
When B decides that he won't attack A for his wealth while he can, he pays a psychological cost for resisting his nature. (Note that this is a simple two-person world scenario where there is no law and police to keep a check.) Therefore, there is a snapping point. It's like an elastic with a limit to how much it can be stretched.
This snapping point has to be taken into consideration while deciding on justice.
So, what actually would happen is this:
Society will “pressurize” B to not attack A while he can, saying that it is not moral, and at the same time if this is not sufficient to contain B's nature to resort to violence, incentives will be created for him to not attack A.
The amount of incentives required depends on the specifics of a particular case. Higher the level of moral development, fewer the incentives required. And it should be noted that moral development is constrained by an individual’s innate nature.
If the level of moral development is not sufficient to contain B's nature (now take A and B for representatives of the weak and strong in all cases) then a just society has to create incentives for B, or else justice will be established the nature's way (B using violence).
In the state of nature, justice is established through violence. In society it's done through 1) moral development of individuals, and 2) incentives to the strong (i.e. those who would have prevailed in the state of nature through violence) to not use violence.
Moral development is essentially a human phenomenon. Incentives to the strong are necessary because though we are capable of rationality, we aren't (can't and won't be) so rational as to be completely unaffected by natural forces within and outside of us.
In part 3, I gave this maxim:
He who is favored by nature would enjoy higher benefits in the just society.
The equation capturing the maxim would be:
(a) Strength in the state of nature = (b) Incentives in the society ..... (1)
Where (a) is strength over others.
After introduction of the argument of morality in part 4, and thereby adding the component of moral development, the final equation of justice would look like:
(a) Strength in the state of nature – (b) Moral development = (c) Incentives in the society ..... (2)
Higher the moral development, fewer the incentives required for the strong to not attack the weak.
The above equation (2) describes the basic framework of equality and justice in society.
To be continued…