Sean asked:

Is justice an unobtainable ideal?

============

I think we have to accept that justice is an unobtainable ideal. It would be good to answer that real life
situations bear upon immediate facts, taking no account of theory, and all that is needed is for
politicians to pay more regard to philosophical theory. However, philosophers themselves have not
conclusively settled what justice is. Justice is a concept with a breadth of meaning: There is justice as
virtue in the views of Plato, justice as the law which supposedly pronounces on and punishes morally
right and wrong actions, and social justice which is political. I suppose you are interested in the latter.

Social justice itself needs to be defined. A lot of people — but not necessarily most people or most
theorists — believe a system of justice should aim at equality. Other people, and theorists, think that
justice is tied to notions of rights and deserts. Within the wide concept of justice are other concepts
which are used to define justice, such as equality, rights, needs, deserts, and these narrower
concepts are not compatible with one another.

The theories of two philosophers, John Rawls (A Theory of Justice) and Robert Nozick (Anarchy,
State and Utopia) exemplify the problem of definition. Rawls sees justice as fairness and equality,
Nozick as rights and deserts, or more specifically "entitlement". Both views are problematic. For
instance, Rawls wants inequalities to be arranged so that they benefit the disadvantaged, but he also
wants equality of opportunity. The problem is that many people have no "opportunities" and benefits
may not provide adequate balance: Consider an unemployed person who receives money from the
state but is bored and depressed, has no particular talents, and recognises no opportunities. This
person is simply disadvantaged. Furthermore, if inequalities are arranged to benefit the
disadvantaged, the advantaged will not regard themselves as advantaged at all — and in all societies
there are persons who want to be advantaged if they can. In theory fairness and equality seem to
define justice, but in reality this doesn't cohere with human nature.

Nozick's theory of entitlement is based on deserts and rights and he thinks that any more than the
minimal interference from the state will interfere with these. On this theory, there is no protection of
the needy unless the old idea of idea of virtue of the individual, or charity, is relied upon. In reality, the
needy aren't keen on charity from the richer individual because it confirms a lower status.
Government interference is less obnoxious, since a government is seen as protecting people's
interests rather than standing as a superior body.

In reality, there will never be equality of opportunity because there is no equality of ability which
provides the means to grasp opportunities. Again, if justice is based on deserts and rights, there will
be no equality.

This is not just a philosophical problem: It's not simply that we don't know what justice is. It is a
problem with mankind. Rousseau said:

The first man who having enclosed a piece of land thought of saying “This is mine” and people found
he was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how much misery and
horror the human race would have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the
ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Beware of this impostor”.

But others followed suit and probably would again.

Rachel Browne