Just and Unjust Society: Wealth and Income Distribution as Criteria

The essay discusses the criteria that determine whether a society is just or unjust in the light of the given statement. It aims to provide an elaborate and coherent discussion on the concept of justice and fairness and the way wealth and income distribution determine these concepts.

Running head: JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
Introduction
The integrity of any society depends on the way its people behave with others
and follow the codes of conduct that the society has set. Justice and fairness are the
two fundamental elements of a society and these decide the way a society must be
organized. Justice refers to the philosophical or the legal theories that administers
fairness. Many philosophers and theorists have devised numerous theories by which
justice could supposedly be ensured (Ake 2017). In the context of the topic, justice is
compromised when wealth and income is unequally distributed. A society’s justness and
unjustness is determined largely by this parameter. A just society could then be said to
be the one that encourages equal distribution of wealth and income. In contrast to this,
unjust societies are those that fail to meet these criteria.
The essay discusses the criteria that determine whether a society is just or unjust
in the light of the given statement. It aims to provide an elaborate and coherent
discussion on the concept of justice and fairness and the way wealth and income
distribution determine these concepts. The essay first introduces the statement and
explains it. Then, it explains the concept of justice in details. It then focuses on the
criteria of unequal distribution of wealth and income in societies like that of the United
States, Australia and New Zealand. After that, the essay discusses whether these
societies are just or unjust.
Introducing the statement
“The concept of justice is fundamental to any discussion of how society ought to
be organised, and questions of justice inevitably arise when one considers the unequal
distribution of income and wealth in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and other
societies”.
Discussion
The above statement highlights the issue of justice and claims that it is the basic
principle that governs the way a society is organized. Further, the statement explains
that doubts and questions regarding justice arise when there is visible inequality in the

2
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
distribution of wealth and income mainly in developed societies like Australia, America
and New Zealand amongst others. It is thus important to discuss whether the criteria of
unequal wealth and income distribution are enough to designate a society as just or
unjust.
Several scholars have researched Justice, as a concept over the years and it
gained prominence especially after the wars. The concept, in broader sense, refers to
“action in accordance with the requirements of some law” (Montague 2017). However,
justice has connotations pertaining to the will of God or his command or even the
nature. Apart from that, some are of the view that justice constitutes the rules common
to all human beings, which has been formed from some type of consensus. Justice of
this type is at ties considered even higher than the legal system of a society. When the
concept is seen from this perspective, any action that seems to breach certain universal
rules within the society, it is considered ‘unjust’. Montague (2017) sheds light on the
concept of justice and explores it relation to law. The author finds that the “there has
been a revival of interest in the idea of justice and its relation to law” post the War
(Montague 2017).
Oppenheim (2018) on the other hand, finds three facets linked to the concept of
justice. According to the author, justice comprises three aspects including ‘interpersonal
adjudication’, ‘law based on fault’ and ‘procedures’. Interpersonal adjudication, defines
the author, as based on the responsibilities and duties of the individual human being.
The interpersonal aspect is the liberal concept of justice, which is mitigation of conflicts
amongst individuals. The second aspect of law based on fault states that no one should
be punished for a fault that is done unintentionally. The aspect of fault is probably the
first thread towards the formulation of the legal order based on justice. The third aspect,
which is laws based on procedures, puts emphasis on the due process of attaining
justice. Oplatka (2014) states that procedures ensure that justice is given to the
concerned individuals without any haste and that all the things are duly examined.
The concept of justice is crucial and fundamental to all societies including the
Western society. It is one of the most significant ethical and political concepts.
Philosophers across nations have delved deeper into the concept beyond the common

3
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
definition and attempt to explore the concept as “both a moral virtue of character and a
desirable quality of political society” (Wolff and Gittleman 2014). In addition, they have
explored the way the concept is applied to decision-making from both social and ethical
perspective. The Western philosophers regarded justice as “the most fundamental of all
virtues for ordering interpersonal relations and establishing and maintaining a stable
political society” (Graness 2015). Philosophers have explored the concept of justice
differently across eras, from the Ancient Greece, Medieval Christianity to contemporary
times. During the ancient times, justice was considered a moral virtue and a just society
was the one where each section carried out its duties without interfering with
appropriate functioning of other sections (Begum and Awan 2013). In Aristotle’s views,
justice is ensured when there is “equitable distributions and correction of what is
inequitable” (Wiens 2014). Aristotle was probably the first philosopher who introduced
the concept of distributive justice, which involved the equal division of both benefits and
burdens amongst members of a society. As time passed, doubts regarding the concept
of justice began to surface, which is evident from the views of philosophers. Thomas
Hobbes viewed justice as an “artificial virtue”, which is needed for the civil society
(Kopajtic 2015). Hume considered justice as serving the public convenience by
protecting their property. On the other hand, Kant saw justice as something that
respects the dignity and avoids violating other’s rights.
However, in terms of the topic in focus, the views of John Rawls and the later
philosophers on justice are important to consider. Rawls, in his works regarding justice
focused mostly on the problems of ‘distributive justice’. Distributive justice refers to the
“socially just” allocation of commodities in a society (James 2017). This form of justice
deals with the principles of equality, equity, liberty and need. Amongst many of Rawls’
philosophies, one suggests that justice necessitates a huge “redistribution of wealth”.
Matsuda (2017) supports this view of Rawls stating that it has been revolutionary for
countries like the United States and other countries especially the English-speaking
countries.
The later theorists following Rawls including Nozick, Nielsen and Pogge amongst
others further elaborated the concept of justice in the context of distribution of wealth

4
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
and income. Nozick, one of the first critics of Rawls states that it is unjustified to
compromise individual liberty to encourage socio-economic equality. He instead
advocated a “minimal state” as being the only socially just. In Nozick’s views, anyone
who has h justly earned any holding or property has the right to keep and use it and
those acquisitions done through theft or fraud must be rectified. He rejected the idea of
redistribution of wealth through taxes and other ways from the well-off individuals to the
disadvantaged and considered it unjust. Koubi and Böhmelt (2014), while commenting
on the distribution of wealth, argues, “The effect on conflict and grievances, in the form
of horizontal inequalities is conditioned on national wealth”. An understanding of the
author’s view reveals that the societies where wealth is in abundant but distribution is
unequal and majority of people are denied access to it are largely unjust.
Considering the above discussion, the emphasis on the distribution of wealth and
income as a parameter for just and unjust society by western philosophers, it is
important to examine the situation in the United States. Wealth encompasses the values
relating to residential properties, automobiles, businesses, investments and savings. As
per the 2017 data for net worth, the country has approximately USD 95 trillion in only
the first quarter. An equal division of this amount amongst the 124 million U.S. citizens
would mean that each family would have around USD 760, 000 as income (Lindert and
Williamson 2016). However, the picture is very different as more than 60 million families
have an average net worth of USD 11,000 only. To say that the U.S is an unjust society,
as it does not encourage equal distribution of wealth would be correct from one
perspective and wrong from other. The American society is unjust from ancient view of
justice and fairness but from the modern views, it is a just society as those who have
earned it justly deserve the wealth and are not entitled to distribute it (Kunnan 2013).
In case of Australia, the situation is similar in terms of wealth and income
distribution. In the 2015-2016 periods, 40% of total income was possessed by the
highest income quintile while the lowest income quintile only received 8% of the total
income (Abs.gov.au 2018). The pattern has stayed constant over the past two decades.
The inequality in income distribution has been largely due to the larger proportion
middle and small income households compared to the smaller proportion of high income

5
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
households. The inequality in wealth is even more visible as around 20% wealthiest
Australians owned household wealth of over 60% and the lowest 20% had less than 1%
household wealth (Abs.gov.au 2018). These stats and figures show that the Australian
society is unjust if it measured by the criteria of wealth and income distribution in the
contemporary era. However, it is important to consider other sections of the Australian
society to see if it is unjust or just as per ancient perspectives of justice. Australia is a
multicultural society inhabited by diverse communities. The colonial history of the
country is also an important facet of the society. Looking at these factors, Australia has
been an unjust society as it has given poor treatment to its minor communities
especially the Indigenous inhabitants.
The scenario in New Zealand is even worse when it comes to wealth and income
distribution. The top wealthiest individuals in the country have more than 70% of the
total wealth while the 40% own just 3% of the total wealth (Archive.stats.govt.nz 2018).
As per the parameters set by Rawls, the New Zealand society is unjust because it does
not have an equal distribution of wealth. However, from Nozick’s point of view, the
society is just despite such disparity because the possessors of the wealth have earned
it in a just way and they are not responsible for others (Segal 2013). In Aristotle’s view,
the New Zealand society is unjust because there is absence of equitable distribution
and attempts have not been made to correct it. On the other hand, when the criteria are
equal treatment of every individual, the New Zealand society has been unjust because it
has treated its Pacific community unfairly over the years. It relates to the ancient theory
of justice propagated by Plato.
The above discussion provides a clear distinction between the concept of justice
based on the criteria of distribution of wealth and income. It is evident that the justness
and unjustness of a society cannot be determined simply by looking at its wealth and
income distribution. The views of the philosophers and theorists from the past and
present differ largely. With a view to understand whether a society following the criteria
of distribution of wealth and income is just or unjust, Marquez (2018) made some
interesting observations. The author also included the studies conducted by scholars
who found unequal distribution of wealth produces other inequalities in terms of social,

6
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
economic, educational and health. The author supports the views presented by the
authors stating that economic disparity does make a society unjust because of the
reasons mentioned above. However, he also remarks that the views regarding the link
between income inequality and unjust society would essentially differ. The reason is that
these views are based on contestable instincts. The author states, “to argue for income
equality is to enter a conversation where there is much potential for disappointment, the
arguments might fail to convince” (Marquez 2018).
It could however be argued that the disparity in wealth and income distribution
does lead to disparities in the quality of life of people. The notion of a ‘just’ and ‘fair’
society is difficult to follow when one section of the society suffers from poverty and the
other flourishes. The principle of equity states that a society is economically just when it
equally distributes commodities to individuals “in proportion to their input” (Benhabib,
Bisin and Zhu 2015). The input here means productivity of the individuals however, it
might also refer to talent and ability individuals possess. Theorists, who find nothing
wrong with the unequal distribution of wealth claim that those who deserve it should
possess wealth and income. Hence, in this light, a society where an able and talented
individual is paid for his or her efforts is a just society. Hein (2013) contrasts this view
stating that the principle rejects the dissimilarities in efforts, abilities and productivity.
The author claims that the differences in efforts and abilities have to be considered
while distributing wealth and income because it might unfairly disadvantage an
individual deserving it.
Apart from the principles of equity, equality and need relating to the concept of
justice, the principles of impartiality, consistency and trust are also important to
understand. These principles are central to the retributive, procedural, standing and
restorative justice as mentioned above. A close examination of these principles reveals
different perspective on just and unjust society. Proponents of these principles argue
that when a society promotes the unbiased and universally accepted procedures in
cases of distribution of wealth and delivering decisions could ensure reliability and
impartiality. The standing principle states that the disadvantaged members of a society
must be included in the decision-making process. These principles further establish that

7
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
a society is just when it ensures equal participation and not just equal distribution of
wealth and income. Therefore, the criteria of unequal distribution of wealth and
distribution as observed in societies like the U.S., Australia and New Zealand are not
enough to designate them as just or unjust.
Conclusion
The ancient and contemporary theories of justice demonstrate that there is much
debate regarding what constitutes a just and unjust society. The essay attempted to
present the views and ideologies of philosophers from the ancient until the current time
to provide a coherent discussion. The discussion revealed that the approach to justice
and fairness changed from the ancient times of Plato and Aristotle to the modern times
of Hobbes, Humes, Rawls and Nozick. The essay attempted to demonstrate the
similarities and differences in their views regarding justice and fairness. It was revealed
that with the gradual transition of the different eras, the focus shifted from moral virtues
and distribution of wealth to minimal state and procedural justice. While most early
philosophers neglected equality in participation and focused only on distributive justice,
most recent philosophers stressed at participative justice. The essay also provided
examples of certain societies like the United States, Australia and New Zealand and
their status on the distribution of wealth and income. The findings conveyed that all the
three societies are economically unjust, which is there is remarkable presence of wealth
and income unequal distribution. However, the essay also highlighted the justness of
these societies in terms of other aspects like treatment of its individuals. Australian and
New Zealand societies are unjust in this regard, the essay found. The conclusion can
thus be drawn that although unequal distribution of wealth and income are crucial
criteria, other aspects must be considered as well.

8
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
References:
Abs.gov.au 2018. 6523.0 - Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2015-16. [online]
Abs.gov.au. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by
%20Subject/6523.0~2015-16~Main%20Features~Household%20Income%20and
%20Wealth%20Distribution~6 [Accessed 7 Sep. 2018].
Ake, C., 2017. Justice as equality. In Justice (pp. 121-141). Routledge.
Archive.stats.govt.nz 2018. Wealth and Disparities in New Zealand. [online]
Archive.stats.govt.nz. Available at:
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Families/wealth-
and-disparities-in-new-zealand.aspx [Accessed 7 Sep. 2018].
Begum, S. and Awan, A.B., 2013. Plato‟ s Concept of Justice and Current Political
Scenario in Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(11).
Benhabib, J., Bisin, A. and Zhu, S., 2015. The wealth distribution in Bewley economies
with capital income risk. Journal of Economic Theory, 159, pp.489-515.
Graness, A., 2015. Is the debate on ‘global justice’a global one? Some considerations in
view of modern philosophy in Africa. Journal of Global Ethics, 11(1), pp.126-140.
Hein, E., 2013. Finance-dominated capitalism and re-distribution of income: a Kaleckian
perspective. Cambridge journal of economics, 39(3), pp.907-934.
James, A., 2017. Constructing justice for existing practice: Rawls and the status quo.
In John Rawls (pp. 69-104). Routledge.
Kopajtic, L., 2015. Cultivating Strength of Mind: Hume on the Government of the
Passions and Artificial Virtue. Hume Studies, 41(2), pp.201-229.
Koubi, V. and Böhmelt, T., 2014. Grievances, economic wealth, and civil
conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), pp.19-33.
Kunnan, A.J., 2013. Fairness and justice in language assessment. The companion to
language assessment, 3, pp.1098-1114.

9
JUST AND UNJUST SOCIETY
Lindert, P.H. and Williamson, J.G., 2016. Unequal gains: American growth and
inequality since 1700. Juncture, 22(4), pp.276-283.
Marquez, X., 2018. Is income inequality unjust? Perspectives from political
philosophy. Policy Quarterly, 7(2).
Matsuda, M.J., 2017. Liberal jurisprudence and abstracted visions of human nature: A
feminist critique of Rawls’ theory of justice. In Gender and Justice (pp. 47-64).
Routledge.
Montague, P., 2017. Comparative and non-comparative justice. In Justice (pp. 83-92).
Routledge.
Oplatka, I., 2014. The Place of “social justice” in the field of educational administration:
A journals-based historical overview of emergent area of study. In International
handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice (pp. 15-35). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Oppenheim, F.E., 2018. Egalitarianism as a descriptive concept. In The Notion of
Equality (pp. 27-36). Routledge.
Segal, P., 2013. Book Review of The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and
Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 11(4),
pp.581-583.
Wiens, D., 2014. ‘Going Evaluative’to Save Justice From Feasibility—A Pyrrhic
Victory. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64(255), pp.301-307.
Wolff, E.N. and Gittleman, M., 2014. Inheritances and the distribution of wealth or
whatever happened to the great inheritance boom?. The Journal of economic
inequality, 12(4), pp.439-468.