Justice is one of the key notions regarding the concept of the perfect world. And. as well as the idea of the perfect world, the notion of the absolute justice is utopic. Initially, we are different by our nature, our physical parameters, temper, etc. Our education adds more contrast to this difference, dividing us into our wishes, aspirations, and our concepts of happiness. It is simply impossible to satisfy all our need taking into account their diversity.
However, the pursuit of justice is a foundation of the human morality. This is a principle that regulates our attitude toward ourselves and others.
Let us talk about social justice, as it greatly depends on the public sentiment.
When speaking about social justice we imply some relations in the domain of the political and legal rights, as well as in the domain of the material good distribution. The concepts of justice can significantly vary in different people. The most part chooses one of the two options regarding such relations.
The first option can be described as a universal equality. Such an attitude implies the distribution of goods based on the principle of the weighted arithmetic mean.
Another option corresponds to the concept of “to each according to his deserts,” that is it implies accounting of the personal contribution to the producing of social or material goods.
In my opinion, the first option is only applicable in the legal sector. However, it is exactly where this attitude is absolutely appropriate. Nobody must suffer discrimination due to their sex, nationality, religion, etc.
With such an approach we all have equal opportunity from the day we are born. However, even in this case, the equality is only conditional. A child, born into the rich family living in the large city’s suburb and a child whose parents are the part of the lowest social strata have to go through a different kind of effort to reach the same goal. Is it fair? It is obviously not. But this is as inevitable in a socially diverse group as the different climate conditions are inevitable in the different parts of the globe. It would seem highly unreasonable to lament such an order of things.
At this moment it would be better for us to come to the consideration of the second option of the social justice. Each of us participates in the transformation of the world we live in to the best of our abilities. How much does the quality of our life depend on our personal contribution to this transformation? That is, to what extent is the ratio of giving and receiving fair? I think it would be impossible to calculate it to some feasible degree. How can we correlate the contribution of a lumberman, poet, banker, and a physician? In the real world, such correlation would be between their wages and taxes they have paid. However, all this would be quite relative.
I think for a person to feel discriminated, to believe not to be properly paid for his job means choosing the wrong way to contribute to the society. Because the bonuses that we receive for our contribution can not only have a material significance. This is also an opportunity to express yourself, a moral and ethical satisfaction from the job you do.
There is also a couple of words I would like to say about justice towards separate social groups. By those, I mean children, elderly people, disabled people, women during their pregnancy, etc. These are people who cannot take care of themselves due to some objective reasons. For this, there are certain institutions representing the system of public distribution. And by the fact how good such a system works, we can judge the level of the social justice in the given society.
It is exactly clear that the higher the level of economic development of the society, the higher the possibility of the social justice. However, its reality rather depends on the spiritual order of the society and its morality.