SCL 3 NOTES / JUSTICEFor Students Private Use OnlyTeacher: Susan Ong

Christian approaches to justice have roots in the Hebrew Scripture. Two words from the Scriptures are translated by our word justice: misphat and sedakah. Misphat are particular duties and responsibilities that embody life in covenant with God and with one another. Sedakah refers to Gods righteousness and hence brings judgment not on particular acts but on the entire shape of the age. While misphat may bear some resonances with to give to each what is due, sedakah requires a far more expansive understanding of justice. Eloquent expression is given to this expansiveness in prophet Amos denunciation of those who trample the heads of the poor into the ground: let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an overflowing stream (Amos 5:24).

Christians are shaped by their understanding of fundamental covenantal responsibilities and of an overarching righteousness that offers the vision of Gods reign. Contemporary Christian Theorists tend to follow the call of Amos in seeing justice as an overflowing stream that will sweep away iniquities.

For philosophers, the grounding of any demands of justice generally lies in a notion of the well-ordered society (Aristotle) or in an extension of the powers of reason (Kant). For Christians, the grounding of justice is in remembrance. What is right or just derives from the original intentions of a loving creator and from the acts of that Creator toward the creation. As we remember those saving acts (e.g. in the Last Supper, the words of institution often are Do this in remembrance of me), we are oriented towards God and Gods intentions for the human community.

What then, are Gods intentions? We are created for shalom, for a harmony of wholeness, peace and justice. In Roman Catholic tradition, this divine law is understood to be reflected in natural law, which can be discerned by reason and is interpreted through the teaching function of the Church. For both Protestants and Catholics, whatever their method for discerning Gods will, the grounding for justice lies in Gods creating, redeeming, and sustaining act. Justice is the human response of gratitude for these great gifts.

In Christian tradition, therefore, justice is primarily determined by God. Justice has to do with fulfilling the demands of relationships. Human justice is intended to reflect the divine justice and is not created solely by human community. One can see the possible conflict between such a view and the stress on individual rights that permeate contemporary liberal tradition. While rights are sometimes affirmed in Christian approaches to justice, these rights are always understood within the larger framework of an emphasis on the common good.

The Christian affirmation that we are fallen or that sin pervades the world means that the original intended sedakah or righteousness has been broken or violated. One of the primary manifestations of sin is injustice. Because the world is permeated with injustice, justice is corrective or reparative it is dominated by the principle of redress or setting things right. To speak of justice is to focus on ways of restoring right relationships.

In one sense, to give to each what is due might be seen as establishing right relations. The prophets of the Hebrew Scripture denounced the rich for trampling the faces of the poor into the dust, so the early Church Fathers saw the rich as robbers who kept bread that belonged to the hungry. Contemporary liberation theologians and feminist theologians are particularly strong in stressing how the personal influenced the political, social, economic, etc. how the individual pain and suffering reflected structural injustices of the larger, political, economic, and social systems. A Christian approach to justice therefore begins with the recognition of structural problems and of oppression.

Because of the centrality of oppression to Christian discussions of justice, the poor become the litmus test of justice. The central recognition that justice has to do with how systems and structures work means that the measures of justice and injustice become the plight of the poor and the oppressed. If some are going hungry, then there must be inequality and injustice somewhere in the system. From this perspective, discussions of justice are not simply about what should be distributed to whom, but also about who has the power to make those decisions and to determine the standards by which justice is assessed. Justice is not simply the proper distribution of goods, but must include attention to the creation of goods, the participation of all in decision-making processes, and the ratification of historical injustices.

A Christian concept of justice is posited on a story shared by a faith community. The vision of a world in which all is in right relation is a vision that could probably be shared by many, but the particular meaning attached to that vision and the modes by which it would be brought about promise to remain contentious in a pluralistic world.

Descriptions of Justice

1. St. Thomas Aquinas: Justice is a habit whereby a person renders to another what is due through a constant and perpetual will.2. John Rawls: Justice as fairness.3. National Conference of Bishops (USA): The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation.

Foundations for the Christian Interpretation of Justice[footnoteRef:1] [1: Brady, Bernard V. 1998. The Moral Bond of Community. Washington DC, Georgetown University Press. Pp. 90-123.]

The Bible begins with a narrative, a story. The story tells us what is at stake in life. It tells us about God and it tells us about people. It describes a relationship between God and people. In doing so, it sets up the conditions for the possibility of the moral life. We are called ...sometimes we do not listen. This simple story is much more powerful than a philosophical discussion on human nature. Reflection on the image of God in the creation text gives us some insights. What then is the reality revealed in the image of God text? The text indicates that we, Gods stand-ins on earth are multidimensional and have a relational nature as well as an individual nature. The very being of a person is bound to his relationship to God, to other persons, and to nature. As Gods responsible representatives, the creative ordering of the world has become something that humanity cannot only witness and celebrate but something in which it can also take part. This all suggests the following:

1. Humans are social beings. The destiny of every person is bound with the lives of many other persons. Indeed, as Genesis 1:26 states, the image of God is in the male and female together.2. Humans are part of creation; not separate from, but in relation to, creation. Humans have the responsibility to protect and maintain the earth as God would protect and care for the earth. Humans moreover, are not the sole bearers of intrinsic value. The goodness of creation, according to the text, preceded the creation of persons.3. Humans are responsible. Each person, like the man and the woman in the second creation story, is responsible to God. Each person is responsible for ones actions. Each person is responsible for other people and nature.4. There is an essential equality among humans. The image of God is prior to individual merit, achievements, social status, race, gender, economic resources, or any other non-essential aspect of the person. This affirmation has significant moral implications for issues of human equality as well as for the exalted view or sacredness of persons.

These four points are the foundations for Christian interpretation of justice. Persons, you and I, people in power, and people, who are vulnerable, are social, related to creation, responsible, and fundamentally equal.

The basic elements for such conceptual vision of justice would be as follows:

1. An account of justice will look for results and consequences but it will not give in to the principle that only results matter.2. An account of justice will be framed within the notion of responsibility. Justice must be understood as a relational term referring to right relations between persons and between persons and institutions and nature/environment. Justice is the moral bond that holds relationships together.3. An account of justice includes a consideration of human rights the minimum moral protection of persons in community.4. While it is appropriate to speak of a just or unjust person and a just or unjust law, justice is about ethics of being as much as it is about the ethics of doing. It is also about individuals as much as it is about society and structures.5. Justice refers to all and protects all. It has a critical eye turned toward oppression and injustice and thus, in those contexts calls for liberation. 6. Justice must not be construed in an excessively rational and calculating way. It is constituted by compassion.7. Human life is life in community. Justice is bond that holds communities together.

Finally, we must be reminded that there is more to morality than justice. In the words of Philip Selznick, justice does not only invoke the noblest human virtues love, sympathy, courage, self-sacrifice; it is not only a promise of moral perfection. In the traditional discussion of virtues, justice is but one of the four cardinal virtues. Yet what would society look like if love and self-sacrifice were the rule with adjudicating vision of justice expressed particularly in the values of fairness and equality? Justice holds a prominent and indeed a privileged place in any consideration of morality. Aristotle, for example, regards justice as the highest of all virtues. We will examine particular relationships and suggest characteristics of justice.

Categories of Justice

1. Interpersonal justice refers to our responsibilities to others with whom we are in close relationships such as friendships, family.2. Commutative justice our responsibilities to others based on professional relationships, employment relationships, or relationships based on exchanged of material goods.3. Distributive justice the responsibility of society through the government to allocate resources and spread its burden fairly.4. Communal justice the responsibility of individuals, groups, businesses, and other institutions within society to pursue and promote the common good.5. Social justice the responsibility of persons to promote the well-being of the vulnerable especially through the critique of established social structures and social institutions.

INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE

Friendship is a common experience among people. We all have friends, we talk about our friends, and the meaning of friendship. This experience can be a common ground for us to consider related issues (e.g. family life). Moreover, friendship is a good thing and friendship is a condition for human flourishing, thus it is a moral category, an idea demanding moral reflection.

Justice is an essential aspect of friendship. Just observe some children playing, and at times, this play session is interrupted or even terminated by claims that one child was treating another unjustly. This shows how fragile relationships can be. Friendships do not just happen. They depend on things namely particular actions, attitude, and words. These are the core of justice in friendship.

Characteristics of friendship (according to Paul Wadell)

1. Benevolence

If we are somebodys friend, we seek their good and work for their well-being. Friendship is not simply a state of being, nor is at merely a feeling for another. Friends do not simply like each other; they seek the good of the other. A friend actively wishes for the best in the friend and acts on behalf of the friend.

2. The second characteristic of friendship is partnership. In order for a relationship to be a friendship, it must be mutual. Friendship is not a one way street; the benevolence must be returned. There are many relationships marked by benevolence that are not mutual. A teacher may care for his students but his students may not care for him. Friendships are characterized by mutuality.

3. The third characteristic of friendship is: friends share similar vision, ideals, and values. They mirror each others fundamental interests, principles, and values. Every friendship is forged around some good that brings the friends together. Our friends while not identical to us, are like us in significant ways. There is a famous saying that would describe this: Birds of the same feather flock together.

4. Trust

5. Respect

6. Constancy

Friendship is just one of the relationships that is characterized by a deep level of commitment. This type of relationship would include marriage relationship, parent-child relationship, and close relationships. In all these relationships involved an experience of love as well as commitment. Margaret Farley (in her book Personal Commitment) ventures a working description of love as an affective affirmation which is responsive and unitive. The essential sign of love, she writes, is that I do the deeds of love insofar as they are called for and possible. She notes however, that this description is not sufficient. Alone it does not give us insights into how we should rightly love the other. After all, we can love wrongly. How can this be so? A father can love a son merely as a projection of himself. A woman could love a man merely for how he makes her feel. There may be love (strong affection for the other). In these relationships, but the love is misdirected or immature. In both examples, the basis of love and perhaps the relationship seems to be the persons self-interest and not the good of the other. How are we then to love the other rightly? Farley uses the moral category, justice, to answer this question. She writes, the norm of right love is the concrete reality of the beloved. A just love (or you might say true love) demands that we love the reality of the other person or to love the person as he/she is with all his/her strengths and weaknesses. We love them, as the saying goes for who and what they are. In relation to our example mentioned, we can say, a love that fails to affirm the childs dignity as a person worthy of respect and love is a false love. A just love demands that we affirm the essential aspects of the person loved. These aspects are as follows:

1. Just love requires recognition of the person loved as a unique individual. This person I love is a person with special needs, desires, and characteristics. He also stands in a unique and particular relationship with me. 2. Just love requires that we see the person loved as a person and take into account the respect due to the person as a person. How often we have seen people who say they love one another yet treat their beloved with less respect. Basic human respect for the beloved should not be downplayed in relationships.3. In the nature of friendship, in the nature of love, indeed in the nature of any human relationship, lies vulnerability (susceptibility to, open to attack, being defenceless). What I mean by this is, when I open myself up to you, I am hoping and trusting that you respond to me with respect. However, you can brush me off, you can ignore me; you can put me down; at worse, you can betray me. The time-honoured definition of justice as giving what is due to the person implies this vulnerability (or unequal power relationship). The term justice implies restoring equality or correcting a wrong or insuring a right relationship among people. If I am to act gently toward you, if I am to give you what you are due, then I am in a position to decide or at least administer something to you. The ball is in my court, so to speak. But before this justice is enacted or restored, there are offers of opportunity for injustice, of domination, and violence. You are vulnerable to my response. The state of being vulnerable, to harm, confers on one legitimate claims to treatment. How will I respond? To act justly is to confirm the bond that exists between us. Will I grant you the respect you deserve as a person? Will I affirm your worth as a unique person? Therefore, we can say that we cannot truthfully love another person without that love being formed and informed by justice. Justice demands the recognition of the uniqueness of the person as well as the fundamental humanness of the person.

Learning to be Just

We ask the question: How does one come to have moral questions? Where does one learn to be just? Where does one learn to love? Paul Wadell (in his book The Primacy of Love) answers these questions in his discussion about friendship. He believes that good friendships are schools of virtues. Good friends draw goodness out of us. We learn how to love and how to be just as we build our friendships. If we learn goodness and virtues from friends, the opposite must also be true. We can also learn vices from friends. This indicates the importance of choosing and befriending wisely. Deciding who will be our friends is perhaps the most significant moral choice we make.

On the other hand, we must admit that friendships are not the first schools of virtues. I think you agree with me that we learn to understand love and justice first from our families. The family is the primary school for the moral life. The narratives/stories of our families and the stories of the lives of persons in our families teach us our first lessons about giving to one what is due. We learn what it means to give, to love. We learn about the different functions within relationships in the family. We practice understanding of what it means to give another what is due and we carry these lessons with us in relationships beyond the family. As John Paul II writes, It is from family that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that find the first school of social virtues that are the animating principles the existence and development of society itself.

The lived experiences of families are models of justice. However, a family can also be the place where injustice is fostered.

Characteristics of Justice

The reflection on friendship and committed relationships gives us a strong foundation to consider the nature of justice. It suggests five characteristics of justice.

1. Justice is a foundational, moral element of relationships2. Justice begins in hearts and minds of people3. Justice is expressed in and through action4. Justice is not a one-time event, it is a process5. Justice restores relationships

Justice is the foundational, moral element of relationships

Justice is a bond, a moral bond that holds relationships together. You can only be involved in a true friendship if you treat the other justly. It is however, not the only bond that can hold relationships together. We know that domination, manipulation, intimidation, and even abuse can keep people together. A dysfunctional family can live in the same house. These are bonds other than moral bonds for a relationships; that is why we name them dysfunctional families or destructive relationships. We know, however, it does not have to be this way. Friendships, intimate relationships and families ought to foster personal flourishing. Justice is the moral category to describe the conditions for this possibility.

Justice begins in the hearts and minds of people

Justice (or injustice for that matter) is not first and foremost something out there nesting in some nameless and faceless social structure or cultural attitude. Justice (or injustice) begins in the hearts and minds of people. It is a matter of choice and personal determination. It is, to use the traditional language, a virtue, a habitual character trait.

Justice is expressed in and through action

The just person does not simply think about right relationships and giving others what is their due, the just person acts for the good of the other. The appropriateness of these actions as well as the moral demand arises from the nature of relationships.

Justice is not a one-time event, it is a process

A friend is not honest to the friend only on one occasion. A friend treats the other all the time.

Justice restores relationships

Sometimes in a friendship, as in all other relationships in life, you have to make things right. Justice determines what is to be done to repair the relationships. Justice, then, is that personal trait, exhibited/expressed in both actions and attitudes that responds to the concrete reality of another. It is the moral bond that holds relationships together.

COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE

Commutative justice refers to our responsibilities to other based on professional relationships, employment relationships, or relationship based on the exchange of material goods.

Families are more complex than friendships. While families have an integrity of their own, they function within other spheres of human relationships. Families are not only communities of love, they are economic, social, and political units. As such, they are affected by and indeed affect other social institutions. Thus, when people reflect on the relationship between justice and family, they consider broader areas of justice namely, the justice of institutions, the justice of social practices within which family live. We often hear, for example, of the effects of crime, violence and the drug culture on family life. The workplace, unemployment, as well as other demands of the market, including consumerism, have had indelible effects on the modern family. Social policy, institutions, and social practices affect the well-being and flourishing of families. That is to say, the justice of the broader areas of human relationships affect the conditions for justice within the family.

Most of the time we spend in relationships with others which does not occur in friendship or family life. Living propels us into many other types of relationships. The second sphere of relationships to consider is that set of relationships beyond our friends, family and committed lover. I am thinking about relationships to people with whom we have regular contact but not close to (emotionally involved with)), namely relationships in school, workplace, clubs, teams, organizations, and so forth. It is within this sphere of relationships that we append most of our waking hours. The rules of these relationships are very different from the rules of friendship and family. These relationships are based on employment and particular interests. They are combination of voluntary and involuntary arrangements. That is, while you may choose to work at a certain company, you do not necessarily pick your co-workers and your boss.

These relationships fall within commutative justice, that is, relationships between individuals within society. The model for this type of justice is an economic exchange or transactions between private individuals. Private here means that the public or society or government is not involved in this relationships. Commutative justice is concern with relationships which bind individual to individual in the sphere of private transactions.[footnoteRef:2] The original context for this type of justice was the farmer bringing his produce to the market. It would be unjust for him to overcharge a customer or cheat on the weight or quality of products. Thomas Aquinas, for example, talks about just price for the products as well as the sellers responsibility for the products sold to the customers. Commutative justice arbitrates conflicts and arise from contracts or promises in the sphere of private interaction.[footnoteRef:3] Jon Gunnemann[footnoteRef:4] writes, Commutative justice is rooted in the fundamental moral obligation against harm. In exchange, harm is avoided when there is equivalence of exchange, harm is done when there is no equivalence. The problem is to determine the equivalence. The National Conference of Bishops (USA), in a similar voice writes, Commutative justice calls for the fundamental fairness in all agreement and exchanges between individuals or private social groups.[footnoteRef:5] The example the bishops give is workplace related, fair wages, and appropriate working conditions. [2: Hollenbach, David. 1979. Claims and Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition. New York, Paulist Press. P. 145] [3: ibid] [4: Gunnemann, Jon. Capitalism and Commutative Justice in Marx Stackhouse, Dennis McCann, Shirley Roels, eds., On Moaral Business:Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life. Grand Rapids, Mich., William Eardmans Pub. Co. 1995. P.] [5: National Conference of the Catholic Bishops of the USA. Economic Justice for All (1986). #69]

There is much to be taken from this traditional category of justice. Yet contemporary life and its complex web of transactions call for a broader understanding of commutative justice.

While we are certainly involved in some private transactions, most of our transactions are mediated through institutions. Commutative justice in the contemporary sense, includes a broad area of relationships, including relationships that bind individuals to individuals in private transactions as well as relationships mediated by institutions and regulated by government. Virtues like justice are characteristics of people. Recall the farmer selling his produce. He can deliberately try to cheat the buyer or not cheat the buyer. Only people are truly moral agents. That is, only people have the capacity for self-determination that makes them responsible for their actions. When we consider the role of institutions in our lives, the context becomes more complex. We can say that institutions can function justly or unjustly. Mary Douglas, an anthropologist argues, The most profound decisions about justice are not made by individuals as such, but by individuals thinking within and on institutions.[footnoteRef:6] Decisions that stockholders, managers, and board of directors make on policy and employees have dramatic effects on peoples lives and on the health of communities. Institutions, corporations, non-profit organizations, schools and churches are moral agents in an analogous sense. Institutions do not run themselves. They are run by and are supported by moral agents individuals thinking and deciding within and on behalf of institutions. But what is the proper response when governments, corporations, schools or churches have unjust policies? [6: Quoted in Bellah, Robert, The Good Society. P. 13.]

John Paul II, speaking on injustices as a sinful condition, offers an insightful and challenging view of personal responsibility, in the context of social relations. He writes:

Whenever the Church speaks of situations or sin or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behaviour of certain social groups, big or small, even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sins are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is the case of the very personal sins. It is the case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit, of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate, or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear, or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take charge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world, and also who side-step the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reason of higher order. The real responsibility, then lies with individuals. A situation or likewise an institutions, a structure, a society itself is not in itself the subject of moral acts.[footnoteRef:7] [7: John Paul II. 1987. Solicitudo Rei Socialis. #65]

Responsibility lies with individuals. Injustice is not something that just happens. Yet individuals can get lost in or mark their responsibility by being members of groups. Being a part of large institutions is yet another way our contemporary culture downplays personal responsibility.

Commutative justice refers to our responsibilities to others based on professional relationships, or relationships of exchange of material goods, or employment relationships. It includes buyer-seller relationship of traditional societies as well as more complex relationships within and between modern bureaucratic institutions. Injustice in this sense arise then when a contract or agreement has been violated or when some form of violence, oppression, theft or abuse occurs. Some injustice is resolved through the courts or mediation.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE and COMMON GOODS

We are, however, more individuals; we are members of communities large or small. The nature of being in community requires justice, and justice is the moral bond that holds communities together. The other remaining forms of justice distributive, communal, and social are understood within our communal relationships. They deal with the various responsibilities of life in community and the common of members of the community.

Distributive justice refers to what the community acting through the government, owes individual members. It reflects on the distribution of social benefits and burdens to individuals. Questions of distributive justice surrounds our lives and are the course of serious debates. Consider the state where we live which is characterized by one large metropolitan area, and a large expansive areas that include smaller cities, towns, farms, and natural resources. State legislators are always debating appropriate allocations of funds which areas of the state ought to get what percentage of the budget? Which population group (seniors, the unemployed, children, poorest of the poor, etc.) ought to get what percentage of the financial support from the state/government? These are some questions of distributive justice. The government is morally obliged to distribute public goods fairly to promote the common good. Distributive justice then, has its object common good, goods often limited or scarce that are not wholly owned by any individual but are necessary for human well-being.

The key word offered by commentators on distributive justice from Aristotle on is proportional. Common goods and social burdens ought to be proportionately distributed. Funding decisions made every year have to be made with respect to the history of previous decisions and with an eye toward future possibilities. It would be impossible to state a once-and-for all rule to follow.

Proportional distribution also refers to the allocation of social burdens. Communities have to solve a variety of unpopular problems. Where does the garbage dump or landfill go? Which community or area will host the new garbage landfill, etc.? Who faces the burden of the new zoning laws? Distributive justice refers not only to the common goods, but also the inconveniences and sacrifices that are part of the community life. It is in the same realm of distributive justice to analyse the tax system. Is the tax structure fair? Do all incomes of people pay taxes proportionally? Social benefits and burdens ought to be fairly and proportionately distributed.

It is impossible to develop a definitive list of universal goods relevant to every culture. Given a particular context and culture, there are at least four sets of common goods namely: fundamental human goods, public goods, communal goods, and procedural goods. Let us look clearly at each of these goods.

1. Fundamental Human Goods

This set includes basic nutrition, security (from not so good elements as well as from aggressors), and basic freedom (like freedom of speech and freedom of religion). These are common goods because they are commonly valued by persons and they provide the necessary conditions for persons to flourish. Thus, the moral imperative: Every person ought to have the minimal nutritional requirements met, and basic security needs met as well basic freedom. The government has the responsibility to oversee the distribution of these goods. In a healthy economy, most people are able to meet their nutritional and housing needs. Society through the government, ought to develop safety net to those who are unable to meet these needs. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that freedom are respected and that security needs are met. The absence of fundamental human goods is poverty. The interference with persons having these goods is oppression. Think about living without these goods. What if you and your family are not able to enjoy these goods but your neighbours had them in excess? These goods are the moral minimums, the cornerstone of human flourishing. They are also the grounds for justification and explication of basic human rights. Fair distribution of these goods is a necessary condition for the good of society.

2. Public Goods

This set includes parks, roads, the physical structures of the community, the air, the water, the land, the environment. Who owns these? In a sense we all do, yet no one really owns them. Public goods require direct action by the government to ensure their protection and development. Decisions about these goods are best reserved for the morally responsible government acting for the common good. We cannot count on market mechanisms or private individuals to fairly distribute playgrounds, streets, highways, and sewers, etc. nor can we count on the market or business corporations to protect the air, water, etc. Public goods, if they are to be developed, protected, and truly public, ought to be under the control of the organization that is directly responsible for the promotion of the common good, namely the government. Repressive government have characteristically distributed such goods unfairly.

3. Communal Goods

This set includes such elements as social traditions, the modes of communication in community, as well as the communitys history, culture, and language. Distributive justice asks such questions: Who keeps them? How do we preserve and communicate them?, etc. Who writes the history? In the Philippines, we have government institutions responsible for this set of goods namely, the National Historical Institute (NHI), National Commission on Culture and Arts (NCCA), National and local museums, National and local libraries.

4. Procedural Goods

This set contains the practices of the general functions of society, such as law, political participation, and education. Procedures are marked by varying degrees of opinions and exclusion, access and denial, participation and domination. A key term here is participation. Are the channels of social participation open to all? Who can vote? Who can receive an education? Distributive justice asks such basic questions as, is the law fair? Do the law and court trials treat similar cases similarly? Is there equal treatment under the law and equal access to the law? Distributive justice examines how the procedural goods are distributed throughout society. Systems may be in place that discriminate against certain groups of people. Rights here are rights to fair treatment and access.

A theory of distributive justice seeks to offer rational justification for decisions/choices concerning allocation of such goods which are open to public scrutiny. As such it challenges arbitrary decision as well as discriminatory practices. Analysing patterns of the distribution of these four sets of common goods gives an indication how just or unjust a community is. It helps us gauge the levels of freedom and opportunity as well as oppression and repression within societies.

COMMUNAL JUSTICE

Communal justice reverses the equation of distributive justice. To paraphrase the famous words of President John Kennedy (USA), asks not what my community/country can do for me, but rather what I can do for my community /country. If the first principle of commutative justice is to do no harm, the first principle of communal justice is to contribute. Communal justice recognizes that while the governments sole existence is to serve the common good, it is not solely the responsibility of the government to promote the common good. All members of society have a proportionate responsibility to serve the community. Communal justice compliments distributive justice, each member of the community owes something to all the rest, and the community owes something to each of its members.

When we speak of interpersonal, commutative, and distributive justice, we are usually speaking about responsibility to and for certain people. Responsibility in communal justice is harder to specify. With communal justice we are speaking of responsibility, not to only to individuals as such but to the community as a whole. The responsibilities of communal justice can be explored through the four sets of common goods described earlier/above.

Fundamental Human Goods

Amitai Etzioni describes general responsibilities related to these goods as he writes, Members of the community have responsibility, to the greatest extent possible, to provide for themselves and their families honourable work which contributes to the commonwealth and to the communitys ability to fulfil its essential tasks. Beyond self-support, individuals have a responsibility for the material and moral well-being of others. This does not mean heroic self-sacrifice; it means the constant self-awareness that no one of us is an island unaffected by the fate of others.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Etzioni, Amitai. The Spirit of Community. P. 263]

The production of material fundamental human goods (food, clothing, shelter) is not primarily the job of the government. It is the role of the individuals and the private sector. Thus if a company produces a good product, market it appropriately, and pays its employees a living wage, it makes a significant contribution to be good of the community. This can be done in a number of ways. Persons can contribute to charitable organizations; they can volunteer; or they involved in community projects. Professions and organizations ought to contribute their talent and specific expertise for the common good. Communal justice is perhaps best illustrated during times of crisis. People have a natural tendency to kick in and help those in need. They feel responsible for the well-being of others and the community.

Public Goods

If the distribution of public goods essentially lies in the hands of the government, the initiation of projects and the protection, preservation of such goods, however, often depends on the actions and attitudes of individuals. Individuals make the choice, for example, to litter, to pollute, to vandalize, etc., and to use resources inappropriately.

Communal Goods

Communal justice entails an ethics of being as much as ethics of doing. This ethics of being includes a willingness to make positive contributions to the common good as well as a willingness to tolerate differences and respect others. In this multicultural society with its wealth of different perspectives and ideologies, this is challenging and necessary. For us Filipinos, it is a big challenge for us to know, appreciate, and value our history, social traditions, our culture, etc. because this is part of our identity as a people.

Procedural GoodsSimply understood, communal justice requires that persons participate in the society for the common good. For example, people ought to pay right taxes, and to be informed participants in the political process aside from dutifully following rules, regulations, and laws, and our cooperation to any project of community for the common good. Communal justice encourages persons to be involved in intermediary institutions (like civic, religious, non-government organizations). Indeed, this is probably the most effective form of social transformation. Strong communities writes Philip Selznick[footnoteRef:9], are institution-centered. There one finds cohesion/unity and moral competence derive from the strength and integrity of families, schools, parties, government agencies, voluntary associations, and law. [9: Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, p. 370.]

A final word on communal justice is that while it supports individuals and organizations, it always looks to the good of the larger. It pursues message that smaller groups/tribes as part of the greater whole. Communal justice is understood in the daily action and attitude that persons and groups have as members of the community. It compliments distributive justice as it expects all members of society to proportionately contribute to the common good.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social justice has its object not on particular relationships but general patterns of social relationships and social interaction. There is a need for a form of justice that responds to, reviews, and evaluates (so as to defend, reject, or amend) social policies, institutions, and structures. This is the realm of social justice.

Earlier in this section, justice was defined as that personal trait, exhibited in both ones actions and attitudes that responds to concrete reality of another. It is the moral bond that holds relationships together. It has already been suggested that relationships could be held together on non-moral bonds violence and the threat of severe punishment might have been the bond that held many slaves to their owners. Social justice demands that the concrete reality of the vulnerable members of community be respected and uplifted. In the normal workings of government and the market, people with power are more able to control the outcomes. In contrast to this, children do not vote, the homeless have no economic power, and in times of war and unrest, the lives of innocent people are put at risk in the face of military objective. Social justice looks at the big picture of social relationships from the perspective of the poor, marginalized, and powerless. It recognizes, moreover, that human choice concerning actions and attitude is expressed in social structures and social practices.

Social justice seeks not only to address the symptoms of injustices, but the cures as well. It asks why people are without food or hungry?Why many people are homeless? Why there is violence at this particular time in this particular place? Social justice then, is dependent on social analysis. Wide gap between the rich and poor, marginalization, high percentage of illiteracy, poverty, etc. are just some faces/expressions of social injustices. Social injustices cannot be solved by individuals, private organizations, businesses, or the government alone. The participation of each is necessary but not sufficient. Responsibility to address and resolve injustice runs wide and deep. Responsibility cuts across society, thus the notion of social justice in distinction to personal or individual justice. The formal organizing element of society, the government, or the state has a significant but not exclusive responsibility to address these concerns, indeed the government itself might be, and often is the target of social justice reforms.

Social justice then, is the responsibility of all to promote the well-being of the vulnerable (e.g. the powerless, the poor) particularly through the critique of established social structures and social institutions. In the concept of social justice then, we see the unification of two moral ideas. The dominant justice concern of the eighth century prophets how the poor and the powerless fare in the society is combined with the modern notion that social structures and institutions can be and ought to be changed so as to promote the common good.

14