Logic in the Wild

View Original

One vs All: Equitable Justice vs Identical Treatment

If you found yourself as the sole survivor in a world devoid of other humans, your actions would be unbound by the typical constraints of morality. Social justice issues wouldn't come into play in such a solitary existence. This scenario, while intriguing, isn't one I'd wish upon anyone. The prospect of being the last human being, in what would cease to be a society, is a bleak one.

However, this thought experiment highlights a fundamental truth: fulfilling all our needs independently is unattainable, given our intrinsic nature as social beings. Living in groups, as we do, means our preferences, desires, and needs will inevitably intersect and, at times, conflict. This necessitates a process of negotiation within our families, communities, and broader society. We strive to find ways to meet everyone's needs while preventing oppression and exploitation.

In a small group, a simple majority rule might seem effective. Yet, this system fails when the majority's decisions adversely affect the marginalized groups. Consider a household of three where a strict majority rule is applied: if two decide that the third person should undertake all cooking duties, the arrangement becomes unjust. As we scale this concept to larger communities and societies, the potential for majority-driven oppression grows significantly. What happens, for example, when a majority dictates that a subgroup should be enslaved for labor?

Conversely, there's the issue of a minority or a dictator wielding excessive power, leading to the oppression of the majority through violence and fear. But that's a topic for another discussion. Here, I'm concerned with the majority's perception that focusing on societal issues faced by marginalized groups, and seeking redress for these issues, somehow diminishes the majority. This viewpoint overlooks the fact that striving for a just distribution of goods and rights in society is not necessarily at the expense of individuals.

If social measures only cater to every individual equally, systemic and societal issues affecting marginalized groups may be overlooked, no matter their severity. For instance, we could tackle class disparities and the economic divide between rich and poor, yet still leave a subgroup in extreme poverty if they are too small to influence the broader movement. This is why the New Zealand government's call to work for "every Kiwi" raises concerns. It suggests that measures benefiting each individual equally are the hallmarks of a just society. However, identifying, acknowledging, and correcting the injustices experienced by various marginalized groups is essential for the entire community to thrive and evolve into a more equitable society.

So the pursuit of social justice and individual rights requires a nuanced understanding that extends beyond simple equations of equality. This involves not only addressing the broader societal issues but also giving due attention to the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups. The goal is to create a harmonious society where the needs of both the majority and marginalized groups are met, fostering a community where every individual, regardless of their group affiliation, has the opportunity to thrive. This approach, focusing on equitable treatment rather than identical treatment, is crucial for building a more just and inclusive society.