Liberalism and justice

In ideological discourse, the term justice is viewed differently according to which side of the horizontal axis we take. Social justice is associated with those on the left of the political spectrum whereas natural justice is associated with those on the right. Debate between those on the left and those on right over how to achieve justice reflects a fundamental division over how to define the term ‘justice.’ The term also bears resonance towards the question of fairness and morality. It also holds international implications in terms of the search for global justice.

The distinction between social justice and natural justice bears immediate relevance for the role of the state. Those who support measures to ensure social justice advocate an activist role for the state whereas natural justice prescribes a more limited role for the state. Whilst social justice is bound up within a broadly positive view of government intervention, natural justice adopts a more critical stance. Within the specific context of liberalism, social justice is widely associated with social liberalism whereas natural justice has an affinity with classical liberalism.

The most important contribution into the meaning of social justice derives from the American philosopher John Rawls. In his classic text ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971) Rawls argued that inequality within society is only justifiable when it provides some benefit to the most disadvantaged. For instance, an unequal distribution of wealth may generate an incentive to work hard and make the necessary lifestyle choices in order to improve one’s station in life. We can thereby justify the existence of inequality provided it could maximise the level of income earned by the poorest members of society. Inequality is therefore entirely consistent with justice and the promotion of individual liberty.

In order to substantiate his argument, Rawls stipulates two interlinked requirements. Firstly, every individual should have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Secondly, social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. These should be attached to positions open to all on the notion of fair and equal opportunity (what he called the ‘difference principle’). In addition, Rawls believed that individuals are rational entities who view the redistribution of wealth as a fair system of co-operation between free and equal citizens. Crucially, the difference principle implies that people’s talents belong to society as a whole.

Rawls also sought to make a link between justice and fairness. In order to achieve this, he put forward a thought experiment in which we are all ignorant of our place within society. As such, we are covered with a “veil of ignorance” over who we are and where we were born. Rawls then asks us to consider “.what kind of laws and justice system would we live by?” Those rules that could be rationally agreed by all could only exist on the basis of impartiality. They would have no regard to ethnicity, social class, gender and so on. Rational self-interest would therefore compel us to create a justice system in which everyone is treated fairly within society. His argument is underpinned by the assumption that avoidance of poverty is of greater motivation than the attraction of wealth accumulation. This is a fundamentally liberal argument in the sense that Rawls believes that we are driven by our own self-interest rather than any altruistic concerns.

In contrast, natural justice is based upon the assumption that those principles found in nature should be applied to the real world. Natural justice is therefore centred upon natural law and what nature intended. This may for instance take the form of Social Darwinism. Supporters claim that natural justice avoids the problems posed by measures to ensure social justice (such as the government providing a disincentive to work via the tax and benefits system and the emergence of an underclass dependent upon welfare benefits).

The natural justice position is dominated by the philosopher Robert Nozick (1974). In his reply to the stance taken by Rawls; Nozick claimed that rights are moral entitlements. As such, there is absolutely no moral grounds whatsoever for the state redistributing wealth in the name of social justice. To do so would reduce the individual as a means towards a greater end. Nozick also argued that material benefits should relate to our worth within the marketplace. The crucial distinction between Rawls and Nozick is that the former is on the left of the political spectrum whereas the latter belongs firmly on the right. It is also worth noting that Rawls is championed by social liberals and socialists, whereas Nozick appeals to classical liberals, neo-liberals and even anarchists.