Social Justice: Restoring Its Proper Meaning
[Robert Hartford, a local member of CAUTION, submitted this paper to PunditHouse. Some intriguing points. Enjoy.]
© 2010 by Robert Hartford
(Presented at: The Atlas Society / Free Minds 2010 Summer Seminar, July 3)
Reprint/ posting permission granted provided this work is published in its entirety.
Introduction
Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States, was known as “Silent Cal” because of his brief responses to questions. When he returned from church one Sunday, Mrs. Coolidge asked him what the pastor spoke about. “Sin,” he answered. “What did he say about sin?” she asked. “He was against it!” “Social Justice!” Are you for it or against it? I am for it! How could I not be? How could you not be? We are for justice in all contexts. We are for “Social Justice!” Silent Cal’s pastor was against sin and we are for justice, because ethics guides us so. Ethics is the key. True “Social Justice” is derived from a valid ethics.
Goal
My goal today is to begin restoring the term “Social Justice” to its rightful place. My hope – to promote advocacy of true “Social Justice.” My dream – to see a large-scale social movement for true “Social Justice.”
Ethical Foundation
A valid ethics provides the foundation for true “Social Justice.” False “Social Justice,” common in our culture, comes from false ethical principles and a general failure to examine preconceived notions. Although Friedrich Hayek said, “social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content,” the advocates of false “Social Justice” have turned that “empty phrase” into a tool that inflicts great harm.
Set the Terms of Debate
We need to fill the phrase “Social Justice” with true “Social Justice” and render it a tool for great benefit. We must not be trapped into a debate “for or against Social Justice.” The terms of debate must focus on what “Social Justice” is and how to achieve it.
Benevolent Premises
We must be benevolent and presume opponents are well-meaning. Maybe they haven’t examined the meaning of “Social Justice,” don’t know its derivation from ethics, and never had cause to doubt their understanding. It’s time to remedy that!
Social Injustice
The current use of the term “Social Justice” as a slippery, nebulous, misused, abused, and manipulative term, must be countered and corrected.
Current Cultural Misuse of Social Justice
Too many people use the term, “Social Justice,” to promote injustice. I will call them advocates of “Social Injustice.” They fall into error because of their narrow focus and their dependence on the category of wealth as an out-of-context social justice category.
Social Categories
There are billions of people on this planet, and they should all be treated with justice. Because it’s impossible to know billions of people individually, we need proper social categories.
Proper Categories
Proper categories for “Social Justice,” are like proper concepts for efficient thinking. Imagine two terrariums, one with 4 legged creatures and the other with 8 legged creatures. Into which terrarium is it safe to put your hand? Neither – if there is a poison dart frog in one and a scorpion in the other. For judging safety, poisonous and non-poisonous are better concepts than number of legs. Likewise, for social justice, self-responsible behavior and irresponsible behavior are proper categories; race and ethnicity are improper categories.
Improper Categories
Historically, grouping by race or ethnicity has led to massive destructiveness, including slavery in antebellum United States, the holocaust in Europe, and genocide in Rwanda. In the 1960’s, Martin Luther King, Jr’s words brought heightened attention to racial discrimination.
“I have a dream . . .”
Aug. 28, 1963
On Aug. 28, 1963, the nation heard, echoing from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Content of Character
Dr. King said “color of skin” should not be a factor and “content of character” should be a factor in judging others. Judging by content of character is the foundation for true “Social Justice” and the moral foundation of a new civil rights movement, a movement to judge and treat people with justice based on their character and actions.
The Soul of a Culture
Objective judgment of character is important, but the soul of a culture is reflected in its people’s actions. Judgment and action, theory and practice, we need to take action to infuse our culture with the whole package needed for true “Social Justice.”
Required Action
Dr. King inspired action by saying, “. . . we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.” He promised, “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” Today, Tea Party activists and others share that kind of commitment. The new “whirlwinds of revolt” oppose the new “shameful conditions,” government imposed involuntary servitude and government suppression of our freedoms.
The 1960s marchers sought a nation free of racial discrimination. The 2010s marchers seek a nation free of government imposed controls and economic slavery. Government imposes economic slavery by forcing its citizens to pay for bailouts, loan guarantees, borrowing, subsidies, and entitlements. The entitlements are unfunded liabilities and threats, promises, and guarantees to take from people in the future to fulfill past irresponsible promises. Government imposes coercive control by hostile forced takeovers – and attempted takeovers – of industry, finance, the media, education, and health care. We march for freedom because government marches toward tyranny. We must “continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” Let’s begin with a review of foundational principles.
Foundational Principles of Social Justice
Content of character is formed, maintained, and judged based on ethics. Ethics requires a view of human nature and human choice. Human choice requires understanding social and political interactions. In short, “Social Justice” requires understanding a broad range of subjects.
Judging Character
Human Nature and Human Choice
Your life is determined by your actions. Actions are based on motives and goals. Choosing motives and goals requires a science of choice. That science is ethics.
Ethics
Ayn Rand’s words describe the foundation of ethics as, the principle of “hold[ing] [one’s] . . . own life as the motive and goal of [one’s] action.” Ethics guides you to self-responsibly choose motives and goals that lead to beneficial actions that promote your well-being and happiness.
Social Philosophy
Ethics, extended to society, guides us to seek voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions with others, interactions that respect each person’s right to pursue his or her own well-being and happiness. That is the essence of social justice.
Political Philosophy
People may choose actions that conflict and they may not be able to voluntarily resolve the conflict. Only one of the actions can possibly take place. One is a political freedom and the other would violate that freedom. If all political freedoms are protected and all violations of political freedom are constrained, absolute political freedom exists. To the degree political freedoms are constrained and violations of political freedom are protected, to that degree tyranny reigns. The foundational ethical, social, and political ideas I have described ground the true meaning of “Social Justice” as a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned.
Views of Social Justice
Let’s now look at some views of “Social Justice.”
John Rawls
A book by John Rawls, The Theory of Justice, supports the current false view of “Social Justice,” with its government controls and subsidies, paternalism, and wealth redistribution.
“Veil of Ignorance”
Rawls asks the reader to think about the meaning of justice while standing behind a “veil of ignorance.” The veil keeps you from knowing if you are rich or poor, intellectually above average or below average, athlete or couch potato. To stand behind the veil is an interesting technique to eliminate personal bias and promote objectivity. Behind the veil, he asserts we would agree to only “allow” disparities of wealth if those disparities made the “least well-off person better off.” This, in a sense, appeals to our humanity and fairness because the voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions of a just society do benefit everyone. Even the least well-off person is better off. But, Rawls falls into error because he ignores the essence of justice – voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions. His arbitrary assessments of wealth disparities lead too easily to the injustice of the next step, to stamp one’s foot with envy, indignation, or “do-gooder” mentality, take from those with wealth, and redistribute it to make the “least well-off people better off.”
“Factors Arbitrary from a Moral Point of View”
Rawls also argues that differences in “rights and responsibilities” should not depend on “factors arbitrary from a moral point of view,” factors such as chance and good luck. He concludes you have no moral right to a lucky benefit. Rawls’ ideal is to have reality shower all with the same degree of luck. If reality doesn’t cooperate, he advocates forced redistribution of luck. We dofeel genuinely sorry for those born into unlucky circumstances. That we have been fortunate and they have not appeals to our sense of benevolence and charity. But Rawls denies to the lucky the moral right to choose the nature of their benevolence and charity. Instead he advocates stealing from the lucky to benefit the unlucky.
“Fair Equal Opportunity”
And for Rawls, success is nearly all luck. Those who chose to work hard and succeed were lucky because they were raised to make the choice to work harder. Those unlucky ones who have less talent, had a deprived childhood, or were raised in a discouraging cultural environment, have a lower chance of success. Even if they have “formal equal opportunity,” they do not have a “fair equal opportunity” to succeed. For Rawls, force must be used to establish “fair equal opportunity.” The subtitle of Rawls’ book should be “Rationalizations for the Forced Transfer of Wealth from the More Productive to Benefit the Less Productive,” or to use Rawls’ mentality, “. . . from the Lucky to Benefit the Unlucky.” Unfortunately, Rawls has been far too “lucky” in influencing our culture.
Kurt Vonnegut
Kurt Vonnegut takes Rawls’ fairness to its satirical extreme in his short story “Harrison Bergeron.”
“Harrison Bergeron”
It begins “THE YEAR was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. . . . Nobody was smarter … better looking . . . stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.” The best and prettiest dancers were weighed down with weights and required to wear masks, so no one would feel envious of a “graceful gesture or pretty face.” The smarter and more thoughtful wore headphones that emitted a screech if they started to think too clearly. Announcing one’s superiority was a capital offense.
Thomas Sowell
In his book, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Thomas Sowell ridicules Rawls’ notion of “fairness.” The “Quest” refers to attempts to fix cosmic unfairness, unfair advantages reality showered on some and not on others. As an example, Sowell cites a Stanford University admissions director who doesn’t require Achievement Test scores because that would “unfairly penalize students” who, “through no fault of their own,” were inadequately prepared in high school. In contrast, Sowell illustrates true “Social Justice” by describing growing up in Harlem. He tells of teachers who “forced us to meet standards that were harder for us to meet – but far more necessary to meet, as these were the main avenues of our escape from poverty.” Watering down requirements, Sowell argues, would have been an injustice.
Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand said, justice means that “every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly.” She further explains that justice is “the act of judging a [person’s] character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion.” This is where advocates of “Social Justice” and advocates of “Social Injustice” part ways. They differ on the meaning of “an objective moral criterion.” Advocates of true “Social Justice,” base the moral criterion on self-responsible action in the service of one‟s own well-being and happiness, leading to voluntary, mutually beneficial, socially just interactions.
On the other hand, advocates of “Social Injustice” base the moral criterion on service to others, by force if they can’t get voluntary consent. They arrogantly proclaim – with the moral righteousness of a slave owner – the right and power to force you to bow to their tyrannical wishes. They want to compel forced service – involuntary servitude. That is unjust based on the secular view of Ayn Rand and others, and is unjust based on commonly held religious views against theft and slavery.
Voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions are vital to “Social Justice.” The socially conservative, the socially liberal, and everyone in between must cooperate to support economic and personal freedom. If liberals do not force conservatives to support liberal social programs, and conservatives do not force liberals to conform to religious doctrines, all can join forces to promote a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned.
Importance of Benevolence
Let’s now further develop a proper view of social justice.
“Unrugged Individualism”
David Kelley’s ground-breaking analysis of benevolence, Unrugged Individualism, opens by stating, “’Benevolence’ means good will toward others. It is a positive attitude toward people in general, a desire for their well-being and for peaceful, cooperative relationships with them.”
Theory : Practice :: Justice : Benevolence
Kelley sees justice and benevolence as theory and practice partners, just as rationality and productiveness are theory and practice partners. Productiveness is rationality in action. Benevolence is justice in action. Kelley states, “justice without benevolence breeds a kind of passive and cautious attitude toward interacting with others.” Such a “passive and cautious attitude” would not further your life and would not further our goal of moving the soul of our culture toward true “Social Justice.”
Moving Toward Social Justice
We need a thoughtful, peaceful, positive, committed, and benevolent approach to activism. Look for opportunities. We need not pledge “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” but some time and effort is warranted in the pursuit of true “Social Justice.” We must not let advocates of collectivist coercion and “Social Injustice” derail our progress toward the ideal of liberty and true justice for all. We have a tradition of respect for liberty and justice. Let’s restore that respect, not because of tradition, but because it is morally right.
Benevolent Interaction for Social Justice
Each of our contributions to promote true “Social Justice” will be uniquely our own. Here I can only provide some examples of my own.
A Million Little Double Thank Yous
You hold open a door for someone. We hear, “Thank you.” – “You’re welcome,” a small, but important, symbol of a social environment of mutual respect and benevolence. You buy a cup of coffee at McDonald’s or Starbucks. We hear, “Thank you.” – “Thank you.” You value the coffee more than the money, and the seller values the money more than the coffee. We hear the “Double Thank You” dramatized by John Stossel on his TV show.
More important, is what I call the ‘Million Little Double Thank Yous.” Consider purchase of an airline ticket. A million people each get a small portion of the ticket’s purchase price. The purchaser should thank a million people and a million people should thank the purchaser – a million little double thank yous. Who are the million people? Those who built the runways, airport facilities, aircraft factories, and the plane; the miners, transportation workers, and raw materials producers; the operation and maintenance workers, the electricians, plumbers, food servers, janitors, baggage handlers; those in the financial industry that supported the necessary capital flow, wage payments, and loan arrangements; and many more.
A genius would find it impossible to calculate how much payment goes to each contributor. In a free-market, millions of voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions coordinate the process. I find it amazing and often express silent gratitude for a free-market that can deliver so much at so little cost. This is true “Social Justice” on a massive scale.
“Tea Party” Events
As another example, my wife, Alice, and I attended four Tea Party events in Washington, D.C., including the event of March 21, the day before the final House of Representatives vote on the Senate Health-Care Bill. Despite many individual philosophical differences with the typical Tea Party activist, it was emotionally satisfying to be with so many people who shared a fundamental antipathy to the massive spending and the increasing government control. The feeling of community had similarities to being here with the The Atlas Society / Free Minds Institute community.
Benevolent Participation
During the bus ride back from D.C., one incident underscored for me the importance of benevolence as part of activism. The leader of the group encouraged us to tell of our experiences while in D.C. I was pleasantly surprised at the thoughtfulness, objectivity, and enthusiasm from what seemed to be a fairly representative cross-section of those attending Tea Party events. There was evident pride in having done what they thought was right, and in registering their protest. At one point a teenager took the microphone and asked how he could convince liberals at his school to understand the conservative position. He received some reasonable responses, but they were all couched in terms of a liberal/conservative duality.
I thought this serious young person deserved better guidance and I felt compelled to speak to his question.
Sound-Nibbles / Activism / Pedanticism
Picture the predominantly conservative and religious people on that bus from North Carolina. I told them we all had the same goal – to protest the massive government spending and the government’s attempt to take over the health care industry. But, the young man should be aware that many people cannot be classified as conservative or liberal, yet they still support the same protest goals. The leader thanked me for reminding people that a range of political views all supported the goal that day. I think my comments and the response to them were respectful, and took place in an atmosphere of benevolence and true social justice.
For social activism, we need commitment to that kind of benevolent interaction. We need more than the “sound-nibbles” of reason, self-interest, and freedom, but less than a pedantic philosophical discussion. We need the power to persuade. We should not be like Calvin Coolidge, “Silent Cal.” He was a sound-nibbles kind of person. He was seated at a banquet next to a woman who told him she made a bet that during dinner she could get more than two words out of him. He replied, “You lose.” We also should not be like the pedantic philosopher who, if asked the time, might give instructions on how to build a watch. Persuasive social activism requires something in between.
Benevolence at Work
Another example: I have worked with three individuals at a software company, one a biblical literalist, one a very religious individual, and one a secular, bright, and thoughtful person with limited philosophical interests. We worked well together because we respected each others business-related talents. We respectfully discussed personal differences occasionally, but kept them separate from business requirements.
From my experience, many of those who use faith, hope, and charity to guide their personal lives can appreciate the need for thought, action, and respect in social life – both in the realm of economic freedom and personal freedom. It is possible that all can agree that true “Social Justice” requires a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and forced, involuntary servitude banned.
Activism in Support of Social Justice
We must weaken the strong attachment many have to collectivism and “Social Injustice.” If people begin to doubt and question their beliefs, they can be moved to ask the question, “Which side is really advocating true ‘Social justice?’” To foster doubt and promote questioning, good-will, benevolence, and genuine respect for a person’s autonomy is essential.
Fostering Doubt and Questioning
We also must reach out to the mainstream media. People of the mainstream media pride themselves on the ability to think. Powerful, correct, and logical arguments, presented with passionate commitment to truth, can cause them to doubt, ask appropriate questions, and move toward social and political views in accord with true “Social Justice.”
Social Justice Analog of the “Nolan Chart”
The “Nolan Chart” portrays the political spectrum with personal freedom on one axis and economic freedom on the other. The ideal is in the upper right with full personal and economic freedom. We need a “Social Justice Chart” that includes economic wealth on one axis and ethical responsibility on the other. The ethical responsibility axis runs from a low of irresponsibility to the high end of self-responsibility. Ethically, self-responsibility in regard to one’s wealth is far more important than the amount of one’s wealth.
Location on the chart is meaningful, but so is its use as a tool to display social dynamics. Location on the “Social Justice Chart” indicates your ethical and economic health. Motion on the chart describes meaningful social change. We can work toward the ideal, the top of the chart, and work toward the upper right within the limits of our talents and ambition. As people move toward the top of the chart, it is likely they will support economic and personal freedom found in the upper right of the “Nolan Chart.”
1854
In her book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, describes the run-up to the election of 1860. Before 1854 the two major national parties were the Whigs and the Democrats. In 1854 “all those opposed to the extension of slavery found their new home in what eventually became the Republican Party.” They included “conscience Whigs” and “independent Democrats.” “Lincoln held back, still hoping that the Whig Party could become the antislavery party.” But, it wasn’t to be. He joined the third party Republicans and was elected President six years later.
Can the Republicans again become the antislavery party? Can the Democrats? Can advocates of personal, social, and economic freedom form a third party? In the age of the internet – can it be done in one year? Would a third party split the vote and leave advocates of economic slavery in power? I don’t know, but these are questions worth asking.
Promoting Activism for Social Justice Courage, Grace and Grit
For activism, we need courage, grace, and grit. Courage is recognition in advance that our activism is not without risk and possibly danger. Grace is commitment to benevolence in our activism, following either a win or a setback. Grit is our determination to carry on until true “Social Justice” is achieved.
Recognize People for What They Are
We need to reach out to others and use their talents to advance the cause of true “Social Justice.” Whether people live their lives guided by faith, hope, and charity, or thought, action, and respect, all can help further the fight for true “Social Justice.” During the American Revolution, George Washington recognized the need to use all the talent available. It’s our turn now.
Is “The Impossible Dream” Possible?
Can we do it? Justice and benevolence, reasoned arguments, and persuasive power, we need it all and it can be done.
Sometimes the literally impossible can inspire achievement of the possible. In the musical “Man of La Mancha,” Don Quixote sings, “To Dream the Impossible Dream,” and commits himself to be true to his “glorious quest.” The song is full of questing after impossibilities. Don Quixote vows “to fight the unbeatable foe” and “to right the unrightable wrong.” The song ends with a call to action, “And the world will be better for this, That one man, scorned and covered with scars, Still strove, with his last ounce of courage, to reach the unreachable star.” The cynical will see Don Quixote “tilting at windmills.” Each of us will commit to the glorious quest. We will achieve the possible dream of true “Social Justice!”
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=3274
