“equals should be treated equally and unequals
unequally—but in proportion to their relevant simi-
larities and differences” (Buchanan and Mathieu
15). Applying that principle to real-life situations
is complicated. Most philosophers of justice agree
that we must focus on certain material principles
in our consideration of whether or not inequality is
just: need, ability, effort, productivity, public utility,
and supply and demand. In other words, when we
try to determine whether or not a particular state
of inequality is just or unjust, we must consider the
above categories.
One system of distributive justice is known as
utilitarianism. This system asks one question of
actions and policies concerned with distribution:
Does it maximize overall utility? For example, for
utilitarians, “maximizing overall utility might permit
or even require members of one segment of society
to lead live of impoverished slaves, lacking even the
most basic civil and political liberties” (26). In the
system of apartheid depicted in Isak Dinesen’s
out oF aFrica, the black Africans live lives in just
such a position. Dinesen is able to justify this situ-
ation because she sees them as childlike and unable
to handle their own affairs. She truly sees this
clearly unfair situation as being better for society as
a whole; thus, she is adopting a utilitarian position.
John Rawls, perhaps the best known philosopher
of distributive justice, rejects this utilitarian mindset.
His principles of justice, outlined in his 1971 book
A Theory of Justice, are threefold. First, each person is
to have an equal right to the most extensive system
of equal basic liberties. For Rawls, these basic liber-
ties are freedom of speech, freedom of conscience,
freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to hold
personal property, and freedom of political partici-
pation. Second, offices and position are to be open
to all; people with similar abilities and skills should
have equal access to positions of power and impor-
tance. Third, social and economic institutions are
to be arranged in ways that maximize the benefits
for the worst off. Rawls’s ideas are controversial, to
be sure, as adhering to his principles almost guar-
antees a redistribution of wealth. Another school
of thought, libertarianism, would declare that any
redistribution of wealth is theft.
So how can we assure ourselves that our societ-
ies are just without becoming Robin Hoods, rob-
bing the rich to give to the poor? Or maybe Robin
Hood, despite his criminal ways, was acting in the
name of justice. Criminal justice, of course, would
punish Robin Hood for stealing from others, but it
is social justice we discuss here. The basic question
is whether or not those at the top of the social heap
have a moral responsibility to share with those at the
bottom. Samuel Clemens, writing as Mark Twain,
seems to have felt that they did. In his adventures
oF huckLeberry Finn, Clemens uses the story of a
child, Huck, who has been forgotten by his society,
to “argue for the ethical and moral treatment of
children” (Kiskis 67). If it is incumbent upon us as
Christians to physically and spiritually comfort the
poor, how can we let a child like Huck forge his way
alone? He is abused by his father, isolated by society,
treated as an outcast, and finally left to fend for him-
self. The community sees this as Huck’s own choice,
but Twain wants us to consider how we can let a
child make such a choice. Twain’s Huck “reminds
us of our complicity in a society that disposes of
people” (71). If we accept that complicity, then we
might also consider the possibility that our society
should mandate reversing such injustice, and this
would inevitably require some type of redistribution
of wealth.
We give up some rights, then, if we are willingly
a part of such a society. If in order to right these
wrongs, we have to give up some of our own basic
liberties, or allow those liberties to be infringed
upon, then perhaps that is the way we achieve justice
as a society.
See also Carroll, Lewis: aLice’s adven-
tures in wonderLand; Conrad, Joseph: Lord
JiM; Dante Alighieri: divine coMedy, the;
Edwards, Jonathan: “Sinners in the Hands of
an Angry God”; Fielding, Henry: toM Jones;
Gaskell, Elizabeth: north and south; Gay,
John: beGGar’s opera, the; Gordimer, Nadine:
burGer’s dauGhter; Jacobs, Harriet: incidents
in the LiFe oF a sLave GirL, written by her-
seLF; Kincaid, Jamaica: sMaLL pLace, a; Law-
rence, Jerome, and Robert E. Lee: inherit the
wind; Lee, Harper: to kiLL a MockinGbird;
McMurtry, Larry: LonesoMe dove; Molière:66 justice