What is a Just Society?

Introduction

After briefly addressing the issues of inequalities in the French education system and the revolt of the British and American people against the feeling of being abandoned on the path to equity and progress by the elites, it seems appropriate to take a step back and consider the sentiment that seems to be most shared by the marginalized in the French school system on the one hand, and the English and American losers of globalization: social injustice.

Relevance of Social Justice

The theme of social justice seems particularly relevant to address as important elections approach in France and Germany, where this theme will undoubtedly be the subject of heated debates. It often hides behind a wide range of political proposals that may initially seem purely "technical": tax reform, universal income, reduction of public deficits, reform of the school system, health system, migrant reception, urban planning, support for agriculture, digital transformation and job insecurity, and so on.

Political Proposals of Social Justice definitions

Each candidate will present their proposals aimed at restoring social justice, or at least their idea of it according to their political sensitivity. While it is commendable in democratic societies that the issue of social justice has become so central to political debate, it seems useful to try to understand what this notion covers, so that as citizens, each can choose among the political proposals those that best align with their values, having made an effort to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each proposal, and thus better understand why it seems appealing.

Understanding Social Justice

My last philosophical dissertation being now very distant and not being a specialist in social sciences, this article has no other pretension than to share the fruit of a modest but real personal effort (mainly through reading) to understand the major currents of thought that have continuously questioned this very old question: what is a just society? In our modern era, this question has infinite ramifications: politics, economy, taxation, urban planning, access to healthcare, business, globalization, generational transfers, etc.

Justice as a Divisive Factor

It is clear that although the concern for justice is widely spread within society, it is not a factor of concord, but rather of division. And for good reason: while the notion of equality is quite intuitive from a legal point of view, it is much less so from a social point of view: determining what is socially just or unjust requires first clearly defining the boundary between individual freedom (a just society can only be based on the defense of this freedom) and equality among all (since the demand for social justice is primarily a demand for equality).

Natural and Social Inequalities

However, while the criterion of legal equality is consensual, human societies must still contend with natural inequalities on the one hand (birth handicap, physical constitution, talents, etc.), and economic and social position inequalities (what can be called social condition). The fundamental questions then arise: how should society take natural inequalities into account? Do they constitute a negation of the idea of social justice, and should society combat them, or should any attempt in this direction be considered a limitation on individual freedom to enjoy one's differentiating talent (but then how to define and measure "individual merit")? And are social condition inequalities the conditions of injustice that any society should aim to repair? Should we seek to equalize material resources?

David Hume's Perspective

According to Scottish philosopher David Hume, not only can we not establish perfect equality among men, but if we tried to do so, it would have negative political and economic consequences. His arguments are as follows:

1. Perfect Equality is Impossible: Men are naturally unequal due to their different personal qualities: they do not have the same skills, nor the same taste for work. Assuming they had the same possessions initially, inequalities would necessarily appear over time.
2. Perfect Equality is Counterproductive: Egalitarianism leads, despite itself, not to eradicating poverty, but to spreading it, which is paradoxical. Perfect equality, if it existed, would create a leveling down. We would have a homogeneous society that does not work, creates no wealth, and therefore does not evolve. With global resources having decreased, poverty becomes widespread.
3. Perfect Equality is a Threat to Freedom: If perfect equality existed, it would require permanent control of individuals to eliminate the slightest inequality among them. It would therefore be necessary to establish a strong, authoritarian power capable of controlling individuals in their every action to subject them to a uniform standard for all.
4. The Search for Perfect Equality Leads to a Contradiction: Hume finally notes that such power would not only be ruinous for individual freedoms but also contradictory, as it would create, in the name of equality, a major inequality among citizens. Indeed, some would have the power to control others.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Response

To this, Rousseau responds that it is not about establishing a "perfect equality" that would homogenize society, but about limiting inequalities as much as possible through laws, because without a certain equality, "freedom cannot exist." What kind of equality is it? The equality to be promoted is primarily legal and political. For Rousseau, as for the Athenian democrats, equality and freedom are inseparable. But material conditions should not be neglected either. If an individual has nothing, how could they be free? They may have the same rights as others: they will have to "sell themselves" to survive. For Rousseau, it is not about homogenizing, but about bringing the "extreme degrees" closer to avoid domination of the richest over the poorest (state of tyranny).

Economic Inequalities and State Intervention

But then, how to prevent economic inequalities from widening? Should the State intervene to redistribute wealth? Is it legitimate to tax the rich to give to the poor? This is where two main philosophical and political camps clash:

1. Social Democrats: They believe that inequalities must be fought because most are unjust. They postulate that individuals' fate is not determined solely by their work or merit, but primarily by their birth: this is what they call social determinism. To combat it, the most radical aim to equalize fortunes, and the more moderate, to at least equalize individuals' chances of success.
2. Liberals: They consider that inequalities are just when they result from fair competition. However, social chance means that some start with undue advantages. They admit that the impact of social origin must be neutralized: with equivalent talents, individuals must be able to reach equivalent positions, according to their principle of efficiency: equality of opportunity makes society not only fairer but also more efficient. It allows placing the most competent people in the most important positions.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

The response of the great contemporary theorist of justice, John Rawls, attempts to reconcile the two points of view while striving to define more rigorously the "principles of justice" that underpin a just society (which by definition would not sacrifice the poor - a criticism he makes of liberals - nor the rich - a criticism he makes of social democrats).

Rawls follows in the footsteps of Kant but rejects utilitarianism: all human beings are persons worthy of respect and must be treated as an end, not as a means. However, he notes that men diverge irreconcilably on the nature of justice and injustice because they are always biased (i.e., their response depends on their individual interests and ideals). He proposes, starting from there, a theoretical method to discover the "principles of justice," by abstracting from the personal interests of each. He uses a theoretical fiction: "the original position."

1. Veil of Ignorance: Individuals are placed behind a "veil of ignorance": they each ignore their social situation and individual interests.
2. Fair Situation: Since individuals are equal in ignorance of their individual interests and face uncertainty, the situation is "fair."
3. Just Principles: The principles chosen by individuals in such a situation will therefore be just (assuming individual rationality).

According to Rawls, rational individuals, faced with uncertainty, would ultimately adopt the same strategy: that of "MAXIMIN." It consists of maximizing what one obtains in the minimal position, i.e., the most unfavorable. The "principles of justice" established in the "original position" will therefore ensure that individuals struck by bad luck can nevertheless find their situation acceptable.

Practical Challenges

This theoretical ideal of developing principles of social justice is of course not applicable. In reality, one of the most difficult practical problems to overcome is to precisely measure each individual's merit, especially in a social configuration where no one works alone without the contribution of others (hence the recurring debate on the remuneration of top executives, for example).

Conclusion

In summary, if the notion of equality is problematic, it is because it is ambiguous. It can be declined at different levels: 1) moral level (equality of persons) 2) legal level (equality before the law) 3) political level (equality in the exercise of power) 4) economic and social level (equality of opportunities, equality of material resources).

This issue becomes even more complex when posed not at the level of a national society, but at the scale of all human societies (North-South inequalities, etc.).

We can debate which "indicators" should be equalized and how far to go in equalization. In any case, a "perfect equality" is neither possible nor desirable. Nevertheless, a society with significant inequalities is precarious, especially if these are perceived as unjust. The feeling of justice is the true cement of democratic society. The recent populist revolts in well established liberal democracies remind us of this with a bang.