From Neocon's Seminar Thread:
There are basically two views of social justice. One emphasizes merit, that those who take risks, work hard, play by the rules, and so forth should reap the benefits of their endeavors, and be able to dispose of their assets as they see fit. The other view emphasizes fortune, and, in essence, laments the difference in individuals life- chances, and seeks to equalize life chances as much as is practicable.
Neither is often put forward in a pure form. In the case of merit, there is a recognition that it is diluted by chance, and that there is a legitimate "social insurance" function of government to ease the burdens of those subject to gross misfortune. Thus, we require the fortunate to pay a larger share of taxes, and create programs to aid the unfortunate.
In the case of "equalization", we recognize that disregarding inequalities of intelligence, talent, and motivation is socially inefficient and ultimately harms everyone, and we recognize that we do not have the knowledge or resources to be too ambitious in the equalization of life chances, so those inclined in that direction merely seek to level the playing field by reducing disparities of wealth and offering auxiliary benefits to the less affluent.
It can be seen that the sober versions of each vision of social justice tends towards a center. Nevertheless, one has to make a basic decision about primary orientation. Those who embrace merit, in our current system of classification, are on the Right, those who embrace equality are on the Left. |
