The Experience of Ron EdwardsA Renaissance Black Man in a White Man's WorldA Beacon for Freedom in the City
|
|
|
Home | All Solution Papers » | All Columns » | All Blogs »
Solution Paper #45b, Introduction to 8 Theories of Justice: where the "contestation" of ideas between historically specific conservatives (which covers both the far left and far right side of the political and religious ideological spectrums who, once they get their change, want to make their changes permanent and unchanging) and historically non-specific conservatives (who make haste slowly because they recognize the changes they seek will continue to change no matter how much they would like them to be changeless). May 24, 2011. Posted December 11, 2011.
This "Solution Paper" provides additional background information for Solution Paper #45, posted May 23, 2011, "Guidelines for Including Justice in Planning Meetings to Calculate a Better Future for Minneapolis in terms of education, jobs, housing and public safety."
Originally published in November 2002 in The Minneapolis Story, Through My Eyes, by Ron Edwards as told to Peter Jessen, pp. 297-299, 300, 315-317, 320-322.
Much as been made by the attempt of various groups regarding Planning for the community, with the elites of Blacks and Whites meeting to make decisions for the non-elite Whites and Blacks. This Solution Paper, along with #43, “Justice and Fairness: The Question of Equal Access and Equal Opportunity,” serve as guidelines for any Planning meetings or process, for any and all discussing or developing public policy, especially in the areas of education, jobs, housing, the environment, and public safety, with the urging to use these solution papers as guidelines for developing the ethics for governing.
These are guidelines for what we call “tracking the gaps" in "The Big 7" of Minneapolis: (1) education, (2) jobs; (3) housing; (4) public safety (including tracking the war on young Black men); (5) safe environment; (6) governing; and (7) moral/ethical stances.regarding access and opportunity, liberty and justice for all. They relate to what we call the The Blocks to Construct a Minneapolis Table for All to Sit At Together.
Which led to our second book, A Seat for Everyone: The Freedom Guide that Explores a Vision for America. This also means tracking the status of the successes and failures of the post 60s Civil Rights Movement and the failures of Black organizations like the NAACP and the Urban League, organizations that have taken their eyes off the prize. Hence our efforts to provide solutions, including our ten suggestions of 2007.
Key concepts are “historically specific conservatives” (those on the left and right who have a Goldern Age from the past they wish to resurrect or a putative future utopia they want to create, and then freeze it in place: conserve it, vs. “historically non-specific conservatives” (those who recognize there will always be unintended consequences with planned change, and therefore urge “making haste slowly”. Some say more harm has been done to people and to the environment by the policies of those who made haste creating change and not evaluating consequences as they went along (20th century ideologies and their wars, famines, environmental degradation, and accompanying impoverishment of 100s of millions who were denied the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, religion, etc.). See also Solutions Paper #42: PLANNING For The Positive Future Possibilities Of Minnesota, for Minneapolis in General, and the African American Community in Particular.
====================
“Theories of Justice,” from SOCIOLOGY AND THE JANUS MASK OF JUSTICE, a class reader , Peter J. Jessen, Bethel College, Class on Social Inequality, Social Stratification, Nov 1989
The video tapes
We reviewed a series of video tapes to help us with our understanding. We ranked them vis a vis how well they did in meeting our five basic points of criteria: freedom, justice, peace, effective, inclusive. The following is based on the protagonists of the videos (the Indians in “The Mission,” the blacks in “The Prize,” Goldwater-ites and Reagan-ites in “The Conservatives,” the conservatives of the Southern Baptist Convention in "Battle of the Bible," the villagers in “Fiddler on the Roof,” the union men in the Minneapolis Truck Strike of the 1930's, the military in "War and Peace", the environmentalist in the environmental tape. The chart looks like this:
Mission Prize Conservs Bible Fiddler Labor Environ War
Freedom for rulers for all for for for the for the for the for the
correct correct faithful working environ military
believers believers person to fight back
Justice yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Peace yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Effective for yes for for no yes no yes
selves conservs new
conser-
vatives
Inclusive no yes no no no no no no
They were all for justice and peace, and for freedom, but for themselves; only the blacks were for inclusiveness. [2011 note: as they were in South Africa transition]
Eight Theories of Justice and their Relevance
The nine theories all take place within a Judeo-Christian framework. None are specifically secular or specifically religious, even when they speak that way.
Each has its own characteristics. Lebacqz characterizes them all using the Marxist slogan: "to each according to his need." She ranks them as follows:
MILL: to each according to those tendencies of actions that maximize overall utility
(t he need to recognize the greater good)
the requirements of justice are derived by looking for the common core in accepted
notions of what is just and unjust.
attention focussed on right action in general
Justice as dealing with conflicting claims regarding possessions in circumstances of scarcity
Unjust = depriving people of legal right, moral right, what they deserve, breaking faith,
partial (showing favors), and treating people unequally
RAWLS: to each according to a basic structure that benefits the least advantaged (within limits
set by equal political rights,) equal opportunity, and just savings for future generations.
(the stress of the least advantaged )
the requirements of justice are derived by looking for the common core in accepted notions of
what is just and unjust.
attends to basic structure of society
NOZICK: to each according to the choices that have given them entitlements
(respect for freedom of choice)
the requirements of justice are those minimal rights derived by deduction from the
Kantian maxim to treat each person as an end and not merely as a means
attention focussed on necessities and limits of the state
BISHOPS: to each according to their dignity as creatures made in the image of God (with duties
and rights consonant with that image, and spelled out in a threefold notion of justice: i.e.,
the priority of the poor)
the requirements of justice are derived by embodying a faith-based vision of justice in
traditional philosophical and theological principles of duties and rights
focussed on poverty in the U.S.
Niebuhr: to each according to principles of freedom, and especially of equality, tempered by love
or equity (yet recognizes the imperfections of justice)
the requirements of justice are derived by the faith-based principle of love compromising
with the realities of sin
attends to fundamental view of human nature: sinful
miranda: to each according to God's interventions in history to liberate the poor and oppressed
(the epistemological privilege of the oppressed: know through doing justice)
the requirements of justice are derived by biblical confirmation of Marxist analysis of
injustices experienced by the oppressed
focussed on biblical ways of thinking
LEBACQZ: to each according to injustices done rather than by what is due, for what is due
not material but justice itself
the requirements of justice are derived by biblical confirmation of dealing first with the
poor and oppressed, and by naming and claiming the world's injustices and then acting
upon them to establish bringing justice to these injustices
Key points of understanding about the theories
key starting end "our"
concept point point how Problem
1. John Stuart Mill: Utility ends; end; any counter-intui-
macro & happiness means; tive;
micro calculated; triage (some
duty; sacrificed
rights; for others;
claims; results focus;
common no redistribu-
sense; tion
moral
sensitivity; rules
2. John Rawls: Social fairness; floor govt system
contract macro; below welfare; emphasis,
Principles; strong which veil of not
equal state none ignorance; outcome;
liberty; should predict; rational
yet fall mutual choice
differences disinterest; theory;
allowed fair equality commonality;
("maximin") of opportuni- equal
ty; rational liberty;
choice in a
fair setting;
govt welfare
as a form of
redistribution
through the
tax system
3. Robert Nozick: Entitlement private no no govt; emphasis on
Principle enterprise; redistribution; just property
of micro- no situation rights;
compensation; minimal floor by just; Assumes
no harm; state; just steps free
fair exchange own is just; market;
property no taxes ignores
illegitimate
domination;
no redistribute
justice as the
market
4. The National abundance theology; re-distribution participation Focus on U.S.;
Conference of of nature macro/micro option for of people nothing
Catholic Bishops; is for all; scripture; the poor; as a right; regarding
dignity for dignity of minimal can own Lat America;
all; people; levels of property; rejects
key starting end
concept point point how Problem
commutative option for care and must allow unfettered
justice; poor respect use of market;
distributive property ignores
justice production
of goods;
undefined
participation;
ignore sin;
no
stand
on type of
economy;
5. Reinhold Love/sin; injustice as brotherhood justice; too optimistic
Niebuhr: a relative exploitation community; about human
justice has of poor; equality; potential;
relative balance of challenge lack of clear
injustice power; oppressors definition;
lack of rules;
no criteria to
judge if justice
done
6. Jose Miranda Liberation the poor; consciousness utopian;
Porfirio: Theology poverty; raising; not self-
theory of oppression; eliminate critical enough;
injustice capitalism as injuries emphasis on
core of caused by structures as
injustice; injustice sinful as
theory of opposed to
injustice sin;
biblical justice means justice for the poor Marxist
justice is what God does framework
poor as litmus test for justice
Marxist analytic methods and social goals
no separation of love and justice
no reconciliation without liberation
no loving harmony without justice
person emphasis, not systems
differentiation of justice and love one of biggest errors of Christianity
7. Karen Lebacqz: Unjust world injustice; liberation resistance same as
option for by the Miranda;
the poor; oppressed
epistemological (rebel and (not a full
privilege of the subvert); theory yet)
oppressed; confession by
key starting end
concept point point how Problem
not look for oppressor;
principles for reparations;
justice is a respect rights
constant of oppressed;
struggle and political
process. emancipation;
economic
restructuring
Lebacqz: continued
oppressed: cry out, protest, resist; rage and anger; repudiate oppressor; refuse to
accept facile reconciliation; demand a "room of one's own"; rebel and subvert the
unjust system
oppressors: set the wrong right; make amends through reparations; respect rights and
dignity of those degraded; recognize wrongdoing; repent;
liberation through political emancipation and economic restructuring; breaking of cycles
of poverty
injustice is structured in institutions and in attitudes such as racism and sexism, and
therefore are seen not as random but as patterned behavior.
Justice is not "to each according to need" of Marxists, nor "benefit to the least
advantaged" (Rawls), nor "greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian). Justice
is a constant struggle and process that provides new beginnings not an ideal state of
distribution
Biblical stories illustrate a theory of justice but do not provide that theory
Theory components:
• "right relationship" or righteousness
• responsibilities and duties, not just rights
• injustice as exploitation and violation of personhood of the oppressed and the
oppressor as well
• rescue/resistance
• rebuke/reparations
• understanding of the theory as always incomplete and partial and therefore
requiring self-analysis and self-correction
• liberation from oppression and "new beginnings" that undo oppressive
structures
Her commonality with and opposition to the other theories
• Mill and utilitarianism:
• OK: because it has a notion of claims, which can be overridden by the "greater
good." It acknowledges an arena larger than that of individual claims
• Not OK and therefore a "no" to it: because it provides no special protections for the
poor and oppressed; it does root root justice in corrections or in liberation
• Rawls and and contract theory:
• OK: share affinities: because justice is done when the least advantaged are benefited
• Not OK and therefore a "no" to it: leaves door open to making chains more
comfortable if the poor or disadvantaged are better off than before; i.e., there is no
motif of the liberation/rescue dynamic. Rawls protects the least advantaged but does
not appear to require new beginnings; Rawls assumes political and economic justice
can be separated, which can't be, as political rights are not genuine without economic
liberation
• Nozick
• OK: it stresses freedom, honors human freedom and freedom of exchange
• Not OK and therefore a "no" to it: because Nozick does not protect the least
advantaged; all he protects is freedom of choice, doing so without a historical
perspective that would show current distributions are unfair, and the oppressors
have an unjust starting point; he also has no jubilee vision, no corrective principles,
and because he sees the market system as not needed correction where Lebacqz
sees "precisely the opposite, based on the concrete realities of injustice"; he has
rights of individuals but no covenantal responsibilities of mutual responsibility
• Bishops
• OK: because have concern for human interconnectedness, for "biblical justice", for
commutative justice, for distributive justice, for a "preferential option for the poor."
• Not OK and therefore a "no" to it: because, despite the affinities, it stresses creation
and covenant as biblical themes instead of covenant within the context of liberation,
and thus lack a jubilee vision of new beginnings.
• Niebuhr
• OK: because of affinity with view of imperfect nature of all earthly justice; perfect
justice as fulfillment of love similar to covenant view; recognizes realities of
injustice and need for struggle and force to correct injustice, and because both
equality and liberty loom large
• Not OK, and therefore a "no" to it: because he turns to philosophy for his principles,
and because liberation never became a part of his theme nor did he combine love
and justice.
• Miranda
• OK: because he provides an important corrective in affirming a biblical view that
unites love and justice; his mishpat study yields many affinities; stress on the fact
that God is now "only in the doing of justice" which gives an "epistemological
privilege' to the oppressed and to those engaged in concrete praxis of struggle
for justice.
• Not OK, and therefore a "no" to it: because he offers no words to the oppressor,
does not incorporate a recognition of the limited nature of earthly achievement of
justice which thus requires a necessity for constant "jubilee" occurrences to break the
injustices brought about by previous jubilees, and because his study of mishpat
uses a word study to approach a biblical perspective opposed to her narrative
approach that draws on stories from Scripture rather than on words translated by
an English term "justice".
• Lebacqz view of her theory:
• OK: because "I consider my own approach to be an instance of "liberation" theology
and ethics; and because it combines the best of the others:
• Lebacqz's agenda for a theory of justice
• the need to recognize the greater good (Mill)
• the stress o the least advantaged (Rawls)
• respect for freedom of choice (Nozick)
• the priority of the poor (Bishops)
• the imperfections of justice (Niebuhr)
• the epistemological privilege of the oppressed (Miranda)
• Not OK, and therefore a "no" to it: she favors using hers to develop a theory,
stating she hasn't one yet, but that these are its elements.
8. Your's:
ASSIGNMENT: write yours; feel free to “borrow” from above.
To order The Minneapolis Story, through my eyes, and/or its follow-up, A Seat For Everyone, click here.
Ron Edwards hosts "Black Focus" on Channel 17, MTN-TV, Sundays, 5-6 pm, and co-hosts Blog Talk Radio’s “ON POINT!" Saturdays at 5 pm, providing coverage about Black Minnesota. Order his books at http://www.BeaconOnTheHill.com. Hear his readings and read his columns, his solution papers and his "Tracking the Gaps" web log. Formerly head of key civil rights organizations, including the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission and the Urban League, he continues his "watchdog" role for Minneapolis, and his work to contribute to the planning to help mold a consensus for the future of Black and White Americans together of Minneapolis.
Permission is granted to reproduce The Minneapolis Story columns, blog entires and solution papers. Please cite the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder and www.TheMinneapolisStory.com for the columns. Please
