How the Perception of Justice Influences Human Well-being
Photo: Alexey Merinov
The growing global inequality inevitably fuels interest in the concept of justice. Before discussing the fair distribution of resources, it`s crucial to understand how these resources are produced. The author recalls a conversation with an experienced procurement specialist who noted that there`s no universal mathematical formula for determining a fair price for goods or services. Instead, prices are shaped by the bargaining mechanism, where supply and demand play a key role. Highly competitive markets, like stock exchanges, with numerous buyers and sellers, tend to establish more transparent and, consequently, fairer prices.
This principle extends to labor compensation. The greater the demand for specific professionals, the higher their chances of salary increases. However, recent decades have seen a trend toward corporate consolidation and globalization, coupled with the active implementation of automation, robotics, and software, which has generally worsened the position of workers and contributed to lower wages.
One of Karl Marx`s foundational ideas was the concept of surplus value. He argued that capitalists do not fully compensate workers for their labor, instead appropriating a portion of the value created. While an entrepreneur`s organizational efforts also hold value, the question of a fair division of this total value remains. Marx failed to provide objective criteria for defining this proportion. The author shares an economic blogger`s view: without considering market dynamics, it`s impossible to objectively calculate fair shares for all participants in the production and distribution process. The struggle between entrepreneurs and employees for a larger slice of the «pie» ultimately determines each individual`s share.
Professionals ranging from accountants to doctors expect fair remuneration. Yet, the criteria for this fairness often remain elusive. How can consensus be reached? Increased labor productivity might seem like an objective indicator for demanding higher wages. However, this metric only reflects quantitative output, not qualitative value. For instance, a journalist who writes three mediocre articles might show higher «productivity» than one who pens a single, exceptionally brilliant and impactful piece. The question arises: which journalist deserves a raise?
John Rawls and Justice as Fairness
John Rawls, a prominent theorist of justice, introduced the concept of «justice as fairness.» His theory rests on two main principles:
- Every person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.
- Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
The author expresses reservations about Rawls`s prioritization of liberty over economic well-being, citing historical examples where individuals might sacrifice freedom for survival. The notion of absolute equality of opportunity is also questioned: it seems natural for successful parents to assist their children. Furthermore, employers might favor a known candidate who could bring valuable connections, or be wary of a talented outsider who might eventually become a competitor.
The proposition that inequalities should primarily benefit the least advantaged is also debatable. A group exclusively focused on the interests of its least well-off members might struggle in competitive environments, as societal advancement is often driven by its most productive individuals. Rawls believed that justice as fairness relies on inherent «moral powers» in people—the capacity to sense what is fair and to understand what is good. However, individual perceptions of justice are subjective, and their objectivity is a matter of ongoing debate.
Amartya Sen`s «Idea of Justice»
To further explore this topic, the author turned to Amartya Sen`s book, «The Idea of Justice.» Sen, an Indian economist and Nobel laureate, illustrates the complexity of justice with a classic example: three children—Anna, Bob, and Carla—disputing ownership of a flute. Anna claims it because she`s the only one who can play it. Bob asserts his right because he`s the poorest and has no other toys. Carla argues it`s hers because she crafted it herself. Sen found himself unable to side with any one child, highlighting the difficulty in formulating a single, universally applicable principle of justice.
Olga Gulevich`s Social Psychology of Justice
The author then references Dr. Olga Gulevich`s book, «Social Psychology of Justice.» Gulevich identifies six primary approaches to the fair distribution of benefits:
- Equity (Contribution-based): Rewards are distributed based on an individual`s contribution and results.
- Effort-based: Compensation is determined by the effort expended (time, information processed, etc.).
- Ability-based: More capable individuals receive greater rewards.
- Personality-based (Positivity): A «good» person is deemed worthy of more reward.
- Needs-based: Those with greater needs receive more.
- Equality-based: Rewards are distributed evenly among all participants.
Gulevich also observes that people who believe in a just world—where rewards and punishments are distributed fairly—tend to have a more positive outlook on life. This belief acts as a psychological buffer, protecting individuals from negative experiences, allowing them to perceive new challenges as adventures rather than threats, and perform better. Such a belief is more common among authoritarian individuals, right-wing supporters, elites, and in cultures that revere authority, as it helps justify the existing social order. Additionally, religious individuals, who prioritize spiritual values, are often more inclined to believe in ultimate justice.
