Jason Polen

PLSC 432 Ethic of Social Justice

10/12/09

“A Nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

My primary social principle is a deontological statement that describes the obligatory

role society has to everyone, not just “the individual”. Society’s primary goal should be raising the

minimum standard of living for everyone. This primary principle assumes societies are capable of

meeting peoples’ basic needs and people are willing to make sacrifices. This principle is derived

from the Kantian sense of “Duty”, but instead of describing the duty of individuals, I am

referring to the collective duty society should have to all its members. This type of duty is

utilitarian because it aims to generate the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of

people. However, my idea of society’s duty is different than utilitarianism because it rejects the

implication of and excluded minority. Utilitarianism creates a false dilemma; while people may

be forced to make extreme utilitarian choices, society as a whole is not subject to these same

harsh realities. There are enough resources for everyone’s basic needs to be met, and even

enough for everyone to live very well. With technology and progressive allocation of resources,

I believe everyone should have access to nutrition, healthcare, a job, education, time for leisure,

the means to raise a healthy family, and a life free from worry about how to acquire these basic

needs. The subsequent three principles are teleological targets that more specifically express

how society should reach a minimum standard of living and continue to raise that standard.

The term “minimum living standards” is culturally and historically relative, and

therefore dynamic. My second principle addresses this relativity by further defining the ideal

relationship between rich and poor. As society progresses, living standards of the poor should

increase at a significantly higher rate than those of the wealthy. What is now being called, “the gap”
 2

refers to the increasing discrepancy between rich and poor. The diminishing marginal utility,

also a utilitarian concept, points to a logical resolution for reversing the gap trend. Society

should focus its resources where they will make the most difference: on the poor. Mahatma

Gandhi captured the essence of this principle when he said, “A nation’s greatness is measured

by how it treats its weakest members”. The more society raises the standard of living the better

society will be as a whole.

This second principle has a limit; it is not meant to create a perfectly equal society

regardless of talent. John Rawls’ “difference principle” is very similar to my second principle

because they both accept a reasonable amount of inequality, while emphasizing raising the

minimum standard of living. Reasonable inequalities in the distribution of resources should be

attached to peoples’ ability to contribute to society. Those who can offer more skills should be

rewarded accordingly, but not to the point where their rewards hinder growth in the lowest

parts of society. Making as many “Pareto improvements” as possible will help society reach

“Pareto optimum”, where an increase in wealth cannot occur without a decrease for someone

else. At this point society should follow my second principle by taking actions that only alter

the balance of wealth in favor of the poor. This is also limited to the extent that people losing

wealth, in this case the rich, retain their personal liberty outlined in my third principle.

My third principle says, individuals’ liberty should be maximized, as long as it does not harm

other people or society as a whole. This teleological principle aims to guide societies’ decisions

toward outcomes that favor the less wealthy, without extensively hindering the freedoms of the

more wealthy. The wealthier people in society have a right to enjoy a higher standard of living

than the less wealthy. A certain amount of inequality is actually good for society as whole

because it creates incentives for innovation. Classical liberal economists claim any barrier to

peoples’ prosperity hinders innovation by reducing our incentive to work. This is a complete
 3

oversimplification that assumes human beings are incapable of comprehending short term

sacrifices, say in the form of taxes, can benefit society and themselves in the long run.

The qualifying statement of this principle is the most important. “Harming people or

society” is considered anything that has a net decrease on society’s minimum standards of

living. I specify net decrease because some things may hurt one aspect of society while

drastically helping another. For example, creating a law that says all grocery stores must give

free food to those who cannot afford it. Deciding who cannot afford food would have to be

determined. The result would drastically increase the living standards of the poor, but have

some negative economic implications for the rich. In this case the benefits to the poor should be

considered above all else.

My fourth principle says, everyone should have the opportunity to compete in the various

aspects of the economy. John Locke said everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of

property”. This vague statement begs the question: what is the best way for society to deliver

these basic rights? First, the structures of society have to be shaped in a way that is effective to

generating these opportunities for everyone. Finding ways to including everyone in economic

endeavors is productive to society and beneficial for people too. Durkheim’s concept of

“anomie” is a result of utilitarianism’s shortcomings: people are left out. Second, this structure

has to close the gap of inequality, while still maintaining incentives for innovation. This is a

difficult, but defiantly possible task.

Accepting vast inequality or attempting to create perfect equality is unethical and

against human nature. My social principles are based on two assumptions about people.

Primarily, we are motivated by our self-interests. Philosophers like Nietzsche and Freud may

interpret this to mean people are inherently selfish or “evil”. I believe we are much smarter

about what is in our self-interest. We want to be taken care of, and know taking care of others is
 4

the best way to achieve this goal. Secondary to being inherently self-motivated, we are more

much more inclined to do good than to do evil. Evil is inherently dangerous, which is against

out self-interests. We will do as much good as we can as long as it is not harmful to ourselves.

People have the ability to see the long-term benefits of short-term sacrifices.

My argument starts out referring to inequality in terms of “rich” and “poor”, and then

changes these terms to “wealthy” and “less wealthy”. This deliberate change is supposed to

reflect what I think society’s ultimate goal should be: eliminating poverty. Interlocking our

futures creates an interdependency that allows our inherent good to come out, and minimizes

the need to act selfishly. My four principles are guiding rules that aspire to create a society

where everyone’s basic needs are met. This allows for people’s good side to come out as much

as possible. The higher minimum living standards are raised, the more humans are free think

and act in a universally beneficial manner, rather than worrying about their personal survival.