Download Economic Justice

Economic Justice
Economic Justice, what is economic justice, and is it truly just? MacKinnon opens this chapter
with a conversation between two people who have different views on the subject. One believes
that wealthy citizens have a right to keep the wealth that they obtain; while the other believes
that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to share their good fortune. This conversation raises
the questions; what does society owe its citizens, and what do citizens owe society.
One issue that is raised while discussing economic justice is income inequality. MacKinnon
addresses this issue by pointing out that according to inequality.org the richest one percent of
households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation’s private wealth. (MacKinnon p.283) She also
points out that this amounts to more wealth than the bottom 90% of households combined.
She provides us with statistics that show, on average women earn less than men, and that
white men in general earn much more than black men or Hispanics. She also gives us some
reasons for this, such as; women often leave work to care for family members, and black men
along with Hispanics lack the education needed to earn more. Most people in society find these
inequalities unjust. MacKinnon quotes the former chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan
as saying, “Income inequality is where the capitalist system is most vulnerable.” Income
inequality is not the only issue related to economic justice, health care is another area where
many suffer inequality. Although our system provides Medicare for the elderly it does not cover
all costs. Our system also provides Medicaid to the poor which allows them access to medical
attention, but provides no coverage for the working poor. Roughly 60% of all workers get their
health insurance from their employers and the majority of the others have no coverage at all.
These people risk spending their life savings on medical cost, therefore many of them don’t
seek the medical attention they need. MacKinnon points out that poverty plays a role in a
person’s health as well. Most poor people cannot afford to eat a healthy diet and are therefore
the most likely to be overweight and unhealthy. This brings us to the question; if income
inequality and health care inequality are considered unjust, what would be considered just. This
leads MacKinnon to the topics of justice, charity, and efficiency. She begins by explaining the
difference between justice and charity. MacKinnon describes justice as a moral obligation to
give people what they have a natural right to receive; whereas, she describes charity as
anything given beyond what a person has a right to receive. Just as justice and charity play a
role in economic justice, so too does efficiency and liberty. Efficiency is a measure of
effectiveness that describes how well an economic system is operating and liberty gives us the
freedom to choose the economic system that we operate. According to MacKinnon many
people believe that a free market economy is the most efficient system because it is the easiest
to create wealth. It is also consider an unjust system because of issues such as income
inequality and health care inequality which we have already mentioned. All of these economic
issues lead us to the question of distributive justice; how wealth is distributed in society.
MacKinnon discusses two different ways to examine distributive justice. The first type that she
discusses is called process distributive justice. This is a view that some philosophers have that
feels that as long as the means by which the wealth was obtained was just, then it is not unjust
to for the rich to keep their wealth. She points us to the reading by Robert Nozick for an
example of this view. Nozick first states in his writing that the term redistributive justice may be
misleading. Therefore, he uses the term justice in holdings. This view holds that if something is
acquired by just means than it is not unjust to keep it. Another term he uses is justice in
transfer, in this he says that as long as the person transferring the holding obtained that holding
justly and transfers it freely then the person receiving the holding is just in keeping it. The other
way of examining distributive justice is called the end state distributive justice. This view holds
that the way people obtain their wealth is not the only issue to be considered. Believers in this
view think it is also important to look at the end results of the distribution and evaluate its
fairness. Radical egalitarians believe that there is no just reason for one person to have greater
wealth than another. Still they must pose the question; what should be equal, wealth and
income, or satisfaction and welfare. Egalitarians point out that although a person may be
wealthy it does not mean that the said person is happy, moreover; many people have little or
no monetary wealth but are still quite happy. In other words “money can’t buy happiness”,
therefore, we ask the question what is needed for a person to obtain happiness and can it be
distributed? This leads us to another philosophy that does not fit under either of the previously
mentioned views on distributive justice. This view is based on whether people have an equal
opportunity to obtain wealth; it does not require wealth to be divided equally among people.
But if wealth is not distributed equally, how can people have an equal opportunity to obtain
wealth? We know that wealthy families are more capable of providing their children with a
quality education than poor families. MacKinnon points out that according to some people like
James Fishkin, a society in which you can reasonably guess a newborns future by the color of its
skin or its sexual orientation, is not a just society. Another view of equal opportunity is called a
starting-gate theory. This view operates under the assumption that people must have the same
start in life in order to have an equal opportunity to obtain wealth. This theory is not without
fault. According to Fishkin, society would have to provide special attention or aid to the less
fortunate, and at the same time infringe on the rights of the wealthy by preventing them from
supplying their children with additional advantages. In order to get a better understanding of
the different views and issues relating to economic justice MacKinnon briefly discusses different
economic systems such as Capitalism, and Socialism. She also describes different political
theories relating to Libertarianism, which she describes as focusing on the importance of
human liberty and the responsibility of government. Libertarians believe that freedom is not
being restrained or hindered by others and that the government should play a minimal role. In
their view government’s role is to ensure that our rights to liberty not be violated, as well as,
provide order to society. Libertarians would agree more with process distributive justice, they
support the idea that it is ok to keep the wealth that you obtain as long as the means by which
you attained it was just. They believe that government has no right to take money from one
person to pay for the needs of another. Libertarians also support Capitalism, an economic
system in which people and businesses own the majority of a country’s capital or wealth.
Capitalists also support a free-enterprise system in which a person or industry is permitted to
make their own decisions about what to produce, when to produce it, and how much to
produce. People are free to choose how to earn their money as well as, how to spend it. This
type of economy is sometimes referred to as a market economy and is run under the
assumption that people are motivated by profit. Capitalism is considered to be the most
efficient economy because it produces more wealth for a greater number of people while
supporting people’s rights to keep what they earn. This leads us to examine the opposite view
of Socialism. MacKinnon discusses Socialism as it holds to the end state distributive justice
theory. She describes Socialism not only as an economic system but also as a political
movement, and a social theory. (MacKinnon p.289) Socialists believe that government not only
has the responsibility to see to our liberty rights, which is sometimes called negative rights. But
to insure that our positive rights are also met. Among these basic needs (positive rights) are
education, healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter. Socialism, like Capitalism and libertarianism
has its disadvantages, but what if we could combine the best parts of all three systems? This is
what MacKinnon refers to as Modern Liberalism. If we could pool together the government’s
role in all three of the previously mentioned systems while promoting a free-market economy
then we might have a more just economy. Liberalism supports both the view of process
distributive justice and the end state distributive justice whichever view is determined most
important. In other words liberalism supports the idea of people and corporations deciding on
when and how to produce goods and services as long as they agree to play a role in securing
the positive rights of the poor and work to alleviate poverty among its citizens. Liberalists
suggest that it is in a company’s best interest to invest in its public surroundings. Businesses
profit from supporting education, healthcare, and building the communities infrastructures
while also promoting research and technology. These theories lead MacKinnon to discuss John
Rawls’s Theory of Justice. According to Rawls, “if we could imagine people in some initial fair
situation and determine what they would accept as principles of justice, then these principles
would be valid ones”. (MacKinnon p. 291) In order for this idea to work the people involved
would have to be free from bias, in other words they must not be able to tip the scales in their
favor by knowing their positions in life. Rawls points out that people consider liberty to be
particularly important and would therefore choose a society that supported equal rights.
However wealth is not as important and therefore it is easier to accept inequality in wealth so
long as ones basic needs are met. Rawls believes that people would choose the society that
better serves the poorest citizens and provides them with equal opportunity to obtain wealth.
After examining this text I believe John Rawls makes a good point. We can all agree that income
inequality is a problem, but I believe it is a problem faced in all economic systems. It does not
matter whether wealth is earned on merit or distributed by a government there will always be
inequality. All forms of government have a selection of citizens who do not have the same
luxuries as other citizens within their community. This goes for healthcare as well, although I
believe that all people deserve the right to medical care, societies in general value some people
more than others. Those who are most valued will receive better healthcare than those who
are not. I believe that people in general would support a system that gives its citizens an equal
opportunity to obtain wealth while allowing them their rights to liberty and freedom.