- one of the most widespread social ideals. Its specific content, as well as its name, has changed throughout history. It is one of the main categories of leftist ideology.

According to some modern ideas, the implementation of the principle in practice includes:

Equality of all citizens before the law

Ensuring guarantees of human life

High level of social security.

In particular, the implementation of the principle of social justice should include:

Employment for every able-bodied person

Decent salary

Social security of the disabled and orphans

Free access of citizens to education, healthcare, culture, sports, etc.

Social justice should be understood as providing a job for every able-bodied person, receiving decent wages, social Security disabled people and children without parents, free access of citizens to education, healthcare, culture, sports, etc.

AT market economy competition forces the entrepreneur to direct his efforts to meet the needs of society. But it by no means prevents the successful entrepreneur from getting rich, if he correctly grasps the demands of the market. This creates a strong motivation for entrepreneurial activity, contributes to the progress of the economy. But at the same time, the market system encourages the social injustice of society.

Economic power is concentrated in the hands of resource owners. On the contrary, a significant part of the population is deprived of ownership of productive resources, which gives rise to its economic dependence. It is no coincidence that in society some act as employers, while others act as employees. There is a differentiation of incomes, property stratification, enrichment of some and impoverishment of others. In other words, the market system itself does not automatically provide social justice.

The possibilities of implementing the principle of social justice in each country at a certain stage of its development are determined by the actual state of the economy.

Social justice can only be achieved with high rates of economic growth, creating financial opportunities for solutions social problems not only by the state, but also by other entities.

A high level of the country's socio-economic development, sustainable economic growth, a system of distribution and redistribution of income, maintaining a minimum acceptable standard of living for a non-working population are necessary conditions for achieving the principle of social justice.

Along with the concept of social justice, there is also the concept of social equality.

Social equality is creating relatively equal conditions for the comprehensive development of each person and his ability to work, maintaining the maximum allowable differences in the incomes of the population, equal responsibility of all citizens before the laws of the country, regardless of personal wealth and position. The implementation of the principle of social equality meets the economic interests of both each person and society as a whole. By creating conditions for the normal development of each person, the state multiplies the economic return of the entire population of the country and thereby increases social investment in each person.

The social function of the market economy is limited, which requires its expansion at the macro level social activities state, and at the micro level - the social activities of other economic entities (enterprises and organizations), various non-governmental organizations (trade unions, foundations, as well as public, religious and charitable organizations).

The market economy deforms the principles of social justice and social equality.

We continue to publish a course of lectures on the fundamentals of politics and methodology for the formation of the party program of the Party of a new type, compiled as a mandatory party minimum of knowledge for a member of the PNT.

Today is the tenth session. Topic: "Justice and social justice". Last time there was a topic: "The country's macro balance" - who consumes the benefits created by the country's labor. You see that each lesson continues or grows from the previous ones and gives rise to a new corridor for the development of relevant thoughts that advance us in understanding important topics. It is clear that the topics of macrobalance, the distribution of wealth and justice are, of course, related, but it is just as clear that there is no need to talk about this, unless we have in mind their implementation in real life. Therefore, the next topic will be devoted to the theme of the state structure, embodying the discussed principles and ideas.

Today's topic - "Justice and social justice" - is very interesting from the point of view of methodology, entering the ability to understand the meanings and essence of far from simple things.

As educational literature, I refer to our work.

DISEASE OF DEFINITIONS

It would seem, who does not understand what justice is? But in fact, this is the most complex concept, one of the most important, aggregating the high meanings of the life of a person and his communities - everything that we have understood so far.

What is justice? What is social justice? How do they differ from each other? How can justice be realized in the life of a person, society and in the activities of the state?

I, unfortunately, cannot recommend the well-known literature to you. You can find it yourself if you want. I cannot recommend it for one reason - as a person who took the liberty of building a system of knowledge and passing it on to you, this literature does not satisfy me at all, and you will now understand why.

The main thing in this dissatisfaction is the disease of out-of-context, and not active-activity definitions, which blur the meaning so much that for people who have the task of programming and designing a state structure, social development, who are preparing to implement justice in the life of the country and people, is so blurry, loose, multi-vector definitions give absolutely nothing. To illustrate, I will specifically read out quotes from philosophical encyclopedias, and using these examples, try to practically grasp the meaning of the word justice, and most importantly, understand how it can be implemented in such an interpretation in the state and public life. Let's start.

Justice is a common moral sanction life together people, considered primarily and from the point of view of clashing desires, interests, responsibilities, a way to justify and distribute between individuals the benefits and burdens of their joint existence within a single social space. There are two meanings of the concept of justice: broad and narrow. This distinction was proposed by Aristotle, whose doctrine of justice, of its essential content, retains its significance to the present. In a general, broad sense, justice is the reasonableness of social life. It can be defined as the common moral denominator of all socially ordered relations between people, the last moral appeal instance in public affairs. It coincides with morality in its projection on the social sphere, it is the main virtue of social institutions. In a special, narrow sense of the word, justice is a morally sanctioned proportionality in the distribution of hardships and benefits of people living together, the degree of perfection of the very method of cooperating activities and mutual balancing of conflicting interests in society, the state.

If the author of this text is not stopped, he himself, it seems, will not stop. Can you answer my questions, at least one of them, after reading this text? At least for the last one? What should everyone do with this box if you want to achieve justice in the lives of people and society?

Here is another definition that is closer to the quality we require.

Justice is the concept of due, the corresponding definition of understanding the essence of man and his inalienable rights. Justice is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio-political consciousness, since it evaluates social reality that is subject to preservation or change from the point of view of obligation. Unlike the concepts of good and good, with the help of which individual phenomena are evaluated, taken by themselves, justice is characterized by the relationship of several phenomena in terms of the distribution of already existing good and evil among people. In particular, the concept of justice requires a correspondence between the practical role of various individuals, social groups in the life of society and their social position, between their rights and duties, between deed and reward, labor and reward, crime and punishment, the merits of people and their public recognition, as well as the equivalence of the interchange of activity and its products. The discrepancy between these ratios is assessed as an injustice.

This definition is closer to some meaningful logical model that answers the questions I have posed. But we will go our own way.

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

What is justice? Is it an object, is it a characteristic, is it a phenomenon or is it a process? The phenomenon is obvious. Feature is obvious. The rest is not obvious. How does one judge what is fair or unfair? In what situation does he generally designate this topic for himself?

Imagine Robinson on an island that does not yet have a Friday when he lived alone. He has no communication with people, society, the state. Does he have a sense of justice or injustice? The only communication (for the purity of the experiment, we will now discard it aside) is communication with God, with whom every person in those days, of course, communicated. Robinson called out: "God! Why are you unfair to me, why have you created such difficulties in life?. Does he question justice or injustice? It is absolutely, obvious and reliable that it does not arise at all.

That is, the first conclusion: justice is something, it is a certain characteristic or some circumstance, factor or reason that arises in communications. Communications of whom with whom? A person with his own kind, there are many of them, at the limit it is a society, and with the state.

What is this communication? This is communication of exchange. A person expects something from others from some of his own considerations and receives something from them. A person expects something from society, from the state, and receives something from them. What could it be? It can be something tangible or intangible.

How does a person fix what is fair or unfair? How? Does he see it? Hear? Does it smell? No. He mentally, psychologically feels, he feels that something that is happening is unfair. Feels not with physical sense organs, but feels and feels mentally. This means that he mentally compares something that is happening with a certain standard and says: “Coincides! So, it’s fair!”, “It doesn’t match! So it's unfair!" What does he compare and with what standard? What is the subject and content of justice. And what is this standard?

A person has a need for communication with society. He expects from his own kind, from society and from the state the same streams of material and non-material benefits or rewards. Why is he waiting for them? Because such is the nature of man, sociality, cooperativeness is an absolutely inalienable property of him. On what basis does he form expectations of certain rewards? A person has his own internal idea, it is almost equivalent to the idea of ​​human dignity, of what he deserves. This is expected on the basis of a person's ideas about himself, about his own dignity - this is the position "I am waiting for retribution."

And where does the reward come from? So what's this? Obviously, what is given, in response to what is expected, is received from another person, from society or the state. On what grounds, for what reasons is something rewarded to someone? We take a micro-society - a family. Toddlers expect from dad and mom, due to established social communications, food, comfort, protection, and praise. It’s already, and it’s almost obvious, that if there is an equal sign between the expected person based on his own ideas about what he deserves, and the equal sign given by society, the state or another person, then a person has a feeling: “This is fair.” The equality of what is expected by man and what is repaid to him is just.

The word "fair" speaks for itself in many ways. It has a semantic root - "rights". The same root exists in the word and the semantic space of the word "correct". The same root is in the word "righteous" and in the word "law" in the sense of the field of jurisprudence, legality, enforcement of the procedures established by law.

These words: "correct", "righteous", "right", "fair" appeal to a certain criterion. The desired standard of comparison. What is right/wrong? We have already dealt with the fact that a person is characterized by well-defined motivations and manifestations in the worldview, intention and action itself. A true person is a person of labor, collectivism, sociality, spiritual satisfaction, non-material values, love, childhood, family, innovation, altruism, tolerance, the value of human life, empathy, creativity, striving for excellence. These are absolute, ideal constants. What are the constants? Not only a true man, but also the totality of people, a human, humanized, true society.

If what is expected by a person coincides with what is given to him (equals sign), this is true. If, in the opinion of this person, an inequality sign appears, he feels that this is unfair, that is, wrong, that is, does not correspond to some absolute constants. It is very important. Let me remind you the difference between morality and morality: morality is an absolute constant of the image of a true person, and morality is the current understanding of morality, achievable at this stage of development of society, which can still be quite far from morality itself.

So, justice is the coincidence of what is expected by a person and what is rendered to him. But remember that the problem of justice arises in connection with the communications of a person with society and a person with the state, and communication is a mutually directed process. If a person expects something from society, then does society expect something from a person? Of course yes. What does it expect from him? "Barankin! Be human!", - there was such a cartoon plot of Yeralash. "Human! Be human! Be a true person, i.e. be social, hardworking, law-abiding, loving, merciful, creative, innovative. And if society, the state sees that a person does not meet these expectations, for example, does not want to fulfill the sacred duty of defending the Fatherland in the name of the country's well-being, then what happens? There is a feeling that something is wrong, unfair, that this person violates some standards that communications make fair. There is a sense of injustice.

Therefore, the concept of justice in relation to one the only person outside its social nature, outside the presence of communicators - the state and society, does not exist at all. The concept of "justice" lives exclusively in the space of the concepts of "true man", "good", "morality". From this understanding, the conclusion arises that justice is a characteristic of the state of a person, his relationships, absorbing all the evolutionary and stage-by-stage upcoming characteristics.

How is social justice different from justice? And nothing is different. Because justice, as we have seen, is inherently social. If there is no society, social communication, no human environment, then there is no concept of justice itself. In fact, "social" is a redundant word.

Justice is the highest ideological characteristic, a characteristic of a person's intentions and actions, as well as of his communities, i.e. society and the state, which makes man and society true, human. Hence this very deep, Russian, ancient word - "righteous." Therefore, we eventually called our new work “The State of Justice - a Righteous State”, choosing the most important formula: “Justice is righteousness, this is compliance with the absolute natural constants that make a person a person, and make humanity human.”

Why then is the term “social justice”, “social service”, “social policy”, “welfare state” so common? This is no coincidence. Remember, I mentioned that the flow of rewards in response to expectations includes tangible and intangible components? What exactly has historically been the key and the main challenge for the physical life of a person? Of course, material: food, clothing, housing, medicines, etc. Achieving justice then, and to a large extent, now is tied to real practice with material distribution, so this institution of justice is de facto primary, and it remains dominant today. But he does not describe the full scope of the people's demand: "My human dignity is not lower than the dignity of any other person."

In deep history there was no such principle, the ancients considered fair what was established as such by people in their contractual practice. Lord - lordly; slave - slave. Caesar - Caesar's, and God - God's. The agreement at a certain stage in the evolution of human societies, the right based on this agreement, reflecting the real level of approach to the true person and to true morality, true goodness, of course, was scanty and limited. A rigid connection was born between law and the order established by it: this master, and this slave, with all the consequences arising from such a definition for one and the other.

Justice and law seem to be intertwined, they still go inextricably linked. In our work, we made a surprising discovery: in modern Russian legislation (I'm not talking about the Constitution), this topic is not raised at all. In the next lesson, we will talk about how in law and state building this fundamental, true, essential, semantic justice can be realized. In Putin's Russia, our state does not even come close to a just state and the concept of justice. It lives according to the laws of the jungle, namely: the more competitive you are, the more benefits you will receive, the more reliably you will achieve justice for yourself; and the weaker you are, the less attention to you, you don’t need to think about you at all.

For example, the liberal Yavlinsky in his presidential program "How to deal with Russian economy? there is this preamble: “The state must be subordinated to the interests of active, active people”. We've arrived! And the rest of the people who are not active and not active? Shouldn't they be visible to the state at all? Should their interests be ignored? This is how racism, fascism, is born, and it is called a crafty snag - liberalism.

We return to the equation - expected and repaid. A person expects from society and the state, society also expects from a person and the state. A person gives labor, obedience to the law, social ̧ moral behavior to society, the state, fulfills his duty, duties, but society and the state give a person wages, provide working conditions, ecological environment, security, protection, social assistance, etc.

Why Soviet Union and the ideas of socialism, communism are often primitivized, mocked at them: "Equalization! All equally!”? Because the first, obvious, primitive thought about justice is this: “Why is it more for them and less for us (or more for this and less for this)? Should be equal". But immediately the opposite thought is born: “And why, in fact, equally? This one worked, and this one did nothing. So this one needs more, and this one needs less.”

The formula of socialism, which, unfortunately, is not currently taught in humanitarian specialties, was very deep and important: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." But this formula is not complete. Let's imagine this formula for a model of society - a family: dad and mom work, which means they have to work, and kids or elderly, sick, incapacitated old parents ... And what about them? Nothing? Of course not. Because the original absolute objective essence of justice is justice in communications. If, according to Yavlinsky, active, active citizens - father and mother in the family - think only of themselves, and children and old people die of hunger, what will happen next? And nothing will happen. Life will stop. Mom and dad will also eventually grow old and die. It destroys the very fact of life. This means that not just by work, but also by the very dignity of a person associated with the fact that babies and old people are family members, and they have their own social law to the level of dignity in accordance with which the redistribution of material goods takes place. And it's not equalization at all. And not at all for everyone. That is, these principles are only valid and necessary in certain contexts.

Remember Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man”, in which the captured Russian soldier Sokolov, having received a loaf of bread from a fascist who was scolding him, returns to the barracks and in the barracks they cut this loaf into tiny pieces of bread with a thread: “Equally for everyone!” ? This tiny piece of bread, which everyone got, could not save lives, did not change anything materially, but how important it was morally! He personified equality in brotherhood, in trouble, in fate. And this moral feeling saved lives, because it was human, it was fair.

The principle of equality in the material, giving rise to its extreme, primitive forms in the form of leveling, caused a decrease in motivation for creative work in the Soviet Union. Socialist competitions and honorary titles of Heroes of Socialist Labor did not help. As we now understand, this principle is far from being the only one in the space for the implementation of justice. But it was the first important step.

STAGES ON THE WAY OF PROMOTION OF HUMANITY TO REALIZATION OF JUSTICE

The historical response of societies to wild inequality and to the public demand for material equality was socialist revolutions, socialization, the intervention of the state in the distribution of material processes, primarily the creation of targeted public funds consumption and the birth of that same welfare state (welfare state). As Putin put it: “Only in the West did the socialist revolution in Russia bear fruit. It didn't bear any fruit for us.". But, God be with him, with Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Something else is important. The progressive evolutionary development has not canceled the struggle between the true man (goodness, morality) and the anti-human being (evil, immorality, appropriation, rent, loan interest). Both the ideology and the practice of this counter-humanity took on a new form.

The stage of the liberal interpretation of justice has begun, here the word "equality" is also used. A very crafty stage with crafty technologies, laws, the Constitution. This is the liberal stage of the so-called equality of opportunity.

What is written in the Constitution of our country in 1993? Everyone has equal rights and freedoms. But why do people live so differently: some do not receive even the most necessary medical care, they cannot buy simple medicines and eventually die, while others are treated in the best clinics by leading doctors in the world? Opportunities are supposedly equal, but life is completely different. The word "human dignity" is forgotten here, but there is supposedly equality. But at the same time, it is slyly not mentioned that the starting conditions are different for everyone, that, it turns out, justice judges the rich in one way, and the poor in another, a relative or friend of the President in one way, and a stranger in another. Sechin did not come to court four times, the court wiped himself: "Okay. Well, what to do ... Well, he didn’t come ... ". And where are the bailiffs and the forcible bringing to court in handcuffs of a witness who violates the law obliging him to appear in court? Some uncle Vasya would try not to appear in court! Not only would he have been brought in right away, he would have also tried clubs in the courtroom if he had spoken out on the part of judicial injustice.

The second stage on the way of humanity's progress towards the realization of justice - the equality of what is paid and what is expected - has acquired a crafty pharisaic appearance - equality of opportunity under the banner of liberalism. The next evolutionary stage will give rise to a kind of state of justice, which absorbs the moral state, constitutional state, the social state as a forerunner, is what we discovered, what we predict, design and offer to Russia in the form of a draft of its new constitution, doctrines, laws. This future gives rise to the state of justice as a righteous state, in which both the right is correct, and the material distribution flows are correct, and justice on a sensual level is achieved for each person. In such a state, our understanding of justice is realized - a person is equal in his dignity. Remember, first equality in material things, then equality of opportunity, and finally equality in human dignity. We will consider such a state from the point of view of the organization of its institutions, functions, orders, mechanisms and procedures in our next lesson.

I will do one more important note, which is not mentioned in the literature. Remember, when talking about fairness, we deduced the equation: it is fair when in given = expected. How is it possible to achieve equality in this equation, if, for example, what is expected exceeds the capacity of the retributor? Increasing the rewarded, tangible and intangible. Is it possible? Of course available. The development of the economy, the development of material flows to the address of minors, the elderly, the sick, state employees, military personnel. They do not create material things, but everyone consumes them.

And if there is a limitation: you can’t build up more material, there won’t be enough labor potentials, resources? But there is, after all, the possibility of reducing what is expected - this is called "non-acquisitiveness", the education not of consumerism, but of rationality, sufficiency of consumption. As the Russian saint said: "Do not acquire - you will be rich". Seems like a paradox! Not really. You will be rich in spirit, meaning, a sense of the righteous, the right. Here is the important key! Why does a person need justice? To feel happy. When such a feeling arises, then one feels the correctness, the righteousness of life. Even if a person is assigned some kind of physical suffering, he will overcome the suffering with his spirit, the appearance of a true, real person. Even dying in agony, he will smile, because he won, because he has something to answer for his life.

Let's go back to our equation. We can increase what is given to a person by increasing the supply of material goods and developing the offer of non-material goods: respect, recognition, prestige of work, sociality, humanity, kindness, all those characteristics that make a person a person. And we can influence what a person expects, educating him in the values ​​of a true person. And such a statement already puts forward demands on the state. What should education be like? How to build upbringing? How to equip culture, literature, art, cinema, theater? What should be advertising, social, political and psychological advertising in the country? And many more "How ...?".

And we understand that from our equation, a deep, universal definition of justice, an understanding of what social justice is, a vision of the stages of evolution from human equality in the material through the equality of people in opportunities and, finally, to the equality of man and humanity in human dignity, we develop scheme, rules, instructions on how we can build a state, how to build relationships in society, so that a person is a person, a human society, the state is a state of justice.

UNITE!

Look how far we have come now. Having introduced the basic definition, we came to the fact that on its basis we found a way and are able to design a state of justice for everyone and everyone, with the demand for equality of dignity for every person, which puts racism, social Darwinism, liberalism, fascism, violence, inequality in the trash. And by the way, Putin's current model of Russia. Russia can now become different.

I hope you have seen how important your own understanding and mastery of your own thinking method is. He not only allowed the drafting of the Constitution, the doctrines of the organization of the state, laws describing public relations. It provides the key to answering new challenges and questions as well.

QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CHECKING AND DEEPENING OF GAINED KNOWLEDGE

1. Define justice

2. How is morality different from morality?

3. What are the three stages in the implementation of justice?

4. What are the ways to balance the equity equation?

5. How does the state embody justice?

6. How is justice different from social justice?

Photo: Longjumeau School. The listeners heatedly discuss the task set before them by Comrade Lenin... Drawing by S. Trofimov

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

social justice

Justice is a category not only of moral consciousness, but also of legal, economic and political. It is no coincidence that the great ancient philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) ​​singled out this category as the main one for assessing the state of the whole society. The concept of justice reflects not only the relationship of people among themselves, but also in relation to some whole.

Justice is a systemic quality that promotes the common good. Without understanding the significance of preserving this whole in the interests of all, the assessment of individual actions as fair or unfair loses its meaning.

Justice is one of the basic concepts of moral consciousness and the most important category of theoretical ethics. Justice simultaneously determines the relationship between people about their mutual duties and about the distribution of jointly produced material and spiritual wealth. Depending on the understanding of what justice should be, the same responsibilities (the same attitude to certain rules of conduct) are assumed for all persons and an equal distribution or different responsibilities for different persons (for example, a differentiated level of responsibility for performing different jobs) and a differentiated distribution.

So in ancient Indian philosophy there was a doctrine of "rita" - the order of things and the unshakable world law of justice, which determines the place for everything that exists. In ancient Chinese philosophy, the role of world law and justice is played by "tao" - the natural fluid order of things. The first fundamental concept of justice as a social phenomenon was expressed by Plato. The legal aspects of the concept of justice were already developed in ancient Rome. Christianity teaches believers that God is not only omnipotent and all-good, but also just. His justice is high power He rewards everyone according to their deserts.

This category was fundamental for such thinkers as J. Locke, D. Hume, G. Spencer, P. Kropotkin. Already in antiquity, it was believed that both an individual and a state can be fair (and, accordingly, unfair). Aristotle rightly drew attention to the fact that justice expresses not just one virtue, but embraces them all. P. Kropotkin connects justice with the desire to restore the harmony of the whole, broken due to wrong actions. Primitive savages and more civilized peoples to this day understand by the words "truth", "justice" the restoration of a disturbed balance.

Aristotle became the thinker who spoke of justice as proportionality. His concept distinguishes between "distributive" and "equalizing" justice. "... Distributive law, with which everyone agrees, must take into account a certain dignity." According to Marx, social justice consists in creating equal access for all people to the means of production, distribution and consumption (both material and spiritual).

The position of common sense and everyday experience in interpreting the concept of justice is most expressed by utilitarianism, a doctrine developed in the 19th century. I. Bentham and J.S. Mill. Supporters of this direction believe that such principles are morally justified, which lead to the maximum of good and the minimum of suffering in society. If a certain kind equality or inequality leads to an increase in the common good, then it is fair, if not, it is not fair. So, the judgment of the justice or injustice of this or that action, according to utilitarians, should be evaluated empirically according to the intended or actually achieved result.

R. Nozick developed one of the most popular libertarian (i.e. radical liberal) theories. Nozick believes that people are free from birth. The basis of freedom is private property, the conditions of possession of which characterize the rights of the state and relations between people. The right to own private property is constituted in the presence of two conditions - a fair initial acquisition of property and its fair "transfer". The right to privatize anyone's thing (a thing that does not have a private owner) is based on the Lockean idea that property is a natural thing in which the owner has invested his labor or corrected it through labor, i.e. adapted to human needs. The privatization of some nobody's property is just according to Nozick, if it does not worsen the situation of other citizens, depriving (or limiting) their ability to enjoy the benefits that they used to enjoy. If deterioration occurs, then justice can be restored through adequate compensation to the victims. It introduces a strict rule that any redistribution of property is only fair if the source of the distributed property is fair. Since a certain part of private property was either initially created or increased due to unjust actions, then, according to Nozick, in this case its “rectification” is needed, i.e. purification in the form of a certain redistribution in favor of the victims. All that is earned by honest labor and transferred in an honest way cannot be alienated. Nozick opposes the swollen state apparatus in favor of a "minimal state" whose main task is to protect citizens from physical violence, theft, fraud and violation of contractual obligations.

As a special theoretical position, which is designed, if not to resolve, then to mitigate the contradictions between the supporters of state systems of assistance to the poor and their opponents, communitarianism stands out.

Communitarists believe that the solution of the problem of justice must be transferred from the universal level to the level of specific communities - groups of people living in a limited region, united by a common history, occupation, tribal and other ties. Just principles are those that are in keeping with the traditions and values ​​of a given community and are recognized as such by its members. The federal state, represented by the ruling metropolitan bureaucracy or the country's ruling financial elite, has no right to impose "fair game rules" on the community from above. These rules must be worked out by the members of the community, which, with immutable necessity, lead to the next round of the growth of the state bureaucracy. The communitarian understanding of justice includes communal solidarity and charity as its essential elements. The forms in which justice is manifested are historically specific, but in any case they should contribute to the survival and prosperity of the community as a whole. Justice is not an end in itself ... It is a means that ensures the normal course of social life and the realization of individual opportunities. As such, the content of the concept of justice changes in the process of historical development and social change. Justice, like any other characteristic of human activity, must be adaptive and serve survival... [It] is biologically rooted in the human perception of goodness. In a community that has been living in a certain local area for a long time and leading a certain way of life, traditional norms are formed over the centuries that contribute to its optimal adaptation to the environment.

Communicative theories of justice

A special place among modern theories justice is occupied by the concepts of the German philosophers K.-O. Apel and J. Habermas. They believe that a fair balance of equality and inequality, proportionality and impartiality can be achieved if all persons who are affected by certain political, economic or other (for example, medical) actions or norms can take part in an honest public argument built on rational reasoning. discussions. As Habermas writes: “The communicative premises of a universally expanding discourse are needed, in which all could express their arguments, substantiating a hypothetical position in relation to the relevant norms and lines of conduct, when their claim to validity is called into question ... The position of impartiality overcomes the subjectivity of one's own perspectives. participants in the process, but at the same time, the opportunity to join the previously formulated attitude of all those involved in the discourse is not lost. In other words, in order to achieve an unbiased assessment, it is necessary to ensure the participation in honest dialogue and discussion of all interested parties.

Justice is achieved as a result of "ideally" organized rational communication. It has a purely procedural nature and is not endowed with any theoretical content that precedes the discussion. The understanding that is reached as a result of the discussion will be recognized as fair. Therefore, if we talk about some specific principles of justice in communicative ethics, then they come down to the principles of honest conduct of rational discussion (ideal communication). A.N. Ermolenko sums up the conditions of ideal communication according to J. Habermas: “1. Every subject capable of speech and activity can participate in discourse; 2. a) Everyone can problematize any statement, b) everyone can speak in discourse with any statement, c) everyone can express their views, desires, needs; 3. None of the participants in the discussion should experience obstacles (both internal and external) in the form of compulsions emanating from the relationship of domination in order to use their rights established in the first and second paragraphs.

Public discussion and joint development of the principles of fair political activity, distribution of scarce resources and retribution for virtues and crimes is one of the most characteristic features modern democratic society. Apel and Habermas offer, as it were, a theoretical idealization of this practice. Their premise is the existence of a pluralistic society in which people hold different views and share different values. None of the value orientations or theoretical positions has the right to act as the only true and dominant one. Communicative ethics refuses the theoretical development of the concept of justice, which precedes the discussion, i.e. remains empty. Thanks to this, different interests and value orientations receive equal (fair) conditions for approval in the process of honest rational discussion.

The weak side of Habermas' ethics is his overestimation of the importance of logical argumentation in real human life. He believes that all people have some universal rationality, so the resolution of conflicts between them is possible on the basis of the proposal of a decisive logical argument. Logic, as it were, forces one to agree, to overcome the limitations of private interests.

Among modern theories of justice, the most famous concept J. Rawls: Justice is a measure of equality and a measure of inequality . People should be equal in the distribution of social values. However, inequality will also be fair when it is such an unequal distribution that gives an advantage to everyone. Rawls' definition of justice falls into two principles:

1. Every person should have an equal right to the widest system of equal rights of freedoms compatible with similar freedoms of other people.

2. Social and economic inequalities should be organized in such a way that (a) benefits for all can be expected from them and (b) access to positions and posts is open to all. Obviously, equality is not always and not for everyone preferred. Thus, equality in the socio-economic sphere, if it is achieved at the cost of restricting economic activity and forcing a low standard of living for the majority of citizens, cannot be considered a blessing.

Conversely, inequality in wealth can be the basis of compensating advantages for each person (for example, through a high progressive tax on wealth), and then it is, of course, fair. This principle is the basis of the entire system of social justice in most Western countries (Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands). democratic rolls communitarianism

So, fair today recognizes equality in the distribution of rights and duties, the availability of justice to all people, but constructive inequality is also considered fair - in the distribution of benefits. The idea of ​​justice as a moral principle aims to establish a limit to individual arbitrariness. The moral content of justice is negative in nature - it is a counteraction to selfish motives and the prevention of harm and suffering to another person. Justice requires respecting the rights of another person and not infringing on someone else's person and property.

Meritocratic (from Latin "meritus" -"deserved", "worthy") approach to justice presented in the concepts of D. Bell ("Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism", 1976), etc. The main requirement of such concepts is the maximum stimulation of the best. The essence of justice is expressed by the principle: "To each, depending on his contribution and in accordance with the powers and privileges inherent in the field of his activity." Merit distribution cannot be limited by the requirement of equality, for such a restriction is unfair.

This, according to the supporters of this position, is the main drawback of the theory of J. Rawls. According to D. Bell, the inequality of various social and professional groups cannot be eliminated. Social distances cannot be artificially reduced. Equality can be cared for only within a group or class, and even here it should be about eliminating only "irrelevant", as Bell puts it, differences, namely, those that are not determined by the size of the contribution to the welfare of society. A post-industrial society must have its own elite, which holds key positions in the economy, politics, and culture. The work of the representatives of the elite should be the most paid. Only the selection criteria are subject to change. The grounds for obtaining privileged positions should be education, high qualifications and positive moral qualities.

Justice as Loyalty

R. Rorty believes that justice can be achieved as a result of an agreement between the conflicting parties that renounce violence against each other, but he believes that logical reasoning does not play a decisive role in reaching an agreement. He believes that the phenomenon of loyalty lies at the basis of human ideas about justice. So R. Rorty notes: “Each of us can expect that the family will hide him in the event of police prosecution. Most will help, even if they know that a relative has committed a heinous crime. At the same time, some will even agree to perjure themselves in order to provide him with an alibi. But if an innocent person is accused as a result of our perjury, then I think the majority will find themselves in a state of moral conflict between loyalty and justice. But this conflict will only be experienced to the extent that we identify ourselves with this innocent victim. If he is our neighbor, the experience will most likely be very intense. If it turns out to be an outsider, especially one of a different race, class or nation, it can be very weakened. He must be in some sense "one of us" in order for perjury to cause us to question whether we are doing the right thing in perjury. Therefore, Rorty believes that justice itself is nothing more than a sense of loyalty extended beyond its natural limits. Relatives are naturally loyal to each other. Therefore, to be fair to a neighbor means to transfer a sense of family loyalty to him. But in the process of such a transfer, this feeling weakens, becomes more abstract, losing the emotional concreteness that it had in the natural framework of the family. The wider the circle of people whom we recognize as "one of us" and, therefore, to whom we extend loyalty, the weaker this feeling becomes. Loyalty to humanity as a whole is weaker and more abstract than loyalty to fellow citizens.

In turn, loyalty to fellow citizens is weaker than to one's ethnic or religious group, and to the latter is weaker than to family or friends. In a crisis situation, this hierarchy of loyalties becomes apparent. During a famine, a mother will share all the bread among her children, knowing full well that the neighbor's child goes hungry. In war, a soldier will kill, without hesitation, an enemy (the same person), because the enemy is a stranger and a sense of loyalty to "our" fellow citizens does not extend to him. Adversity narrows the sense of loyalty, while prosperity expands it. Thus, we can distinguish the following criteria according to which ideas about justice are developed:

Equalization aimed at preserving the whole (the same exchange of moral qualities);

Evaluation of the individual contribution of each to the increase in social wealth (in strengthening the power of the whole) - socially sanctioned encouragement;

protection of individuality - guarantees of fundamental human rights;

conditions for asserting individuality - opportunities for self-realization provided by society, including the right to education, providing starting conditions for satisfying one's own interest;

the permissible degree of expression of one's own interest;

integration into the world community (associated with the guarantee of the right to freedom of movement, choice of place of residence, conditions for the development of cultural life). If the demands of the ideal are far ahead of reality, there is a desire to build a society that isolates itself from other societies. This is how a utopian and unfair practice of self-isolation arises in relation to a person, associated with restricting access to information, creating obstacles for contacts with citizens of other states, prohibiting travel abroad, etc.

Applying the principle of justice, we sort of assess to what extent, pursuing private and group interests, both citizens and government officials are guided in their actions by the “general scope” of traditional norms or legal norms. Russian philosopher I.A. Ilyin wrote that justice consists "in an impartial, objective accounting, recognition and protection of each individual spiritual subject in all its essential properties and fundamental claims." At the same time, justice does not mechanically equalize people. “It requires, firstly, the same objective impartiality in considering human similarities and differences, secondly, a stable content for those measures and scales according to which this stratification takes place, thirdly, a real correspondence between this distinction and the legal and life consequences.

Impartiality is the most important universally recognized mark of justice among theorists of a wide variety of philosophical and political views. Citizen's judgment or decision state institute just if it is done in accordance with a certain norm of law, morality or custom, as they say - regardless of persons. The principle of impartiality requires citizens and authorities to be able to think from the position of the whole (to be state people), abstracting from the influence of private or corporate values ​​and interests. It establishes the equality of all before the norms recognized in society and requires equal punishment for those who have committed the same crime and an equal reward for those who have committed the same type of act useful to society. This means that citizens are recognized as equals, without division into people of the first and second class. And from the universality of recognizing each as equal to another, the equality of basic (for example, constitutional) rights and obligations follows. Moreover, these rights are equally protected for everyone, and duties are equally exacted from everyone.

Impartiality ensures a stable rotation of power in society between different citizens and social groups. If the ruling today prudently admits that tomorrow he may lose this power, then his strategic interest will be to protect and take into account the interests of those who do not have power. Therefore, I.A. Ilyin insists on the equality of measures of human similarities and differences. Equal must be guaranteed equal.

Then in what sense is the inequality true? Firstly, if it is a life consequence of the impartial application of equal measures to the assessment (reprimand and reward) of individuals competing with each other in society with unequal abilities, talents, economic and other opportunities. The inequality resulting from fair competition is just. The analogy with sports is quite appropriate here. Victory and reward went to one team fairly, as well as the bitterness of defeat for the other, if they played honestly, according to the rules. Secondly, if inequality is recognized by the most stable measure as an essential human difference. In any society, special groups of people stand out who are not able to compete on an equal footing with others due to circumstances beyond their control (for example, children, the elderly, the disabled). But even these special rights and obligations are established not by the merciful arbitrariness of those in power, but on the basis of impartially acting moral preferences, which are expressed in the forms of law or the customs of mercy and solidarity.

O. Heffe called equality in the application of laws the impartiality of the first level. The impartiality of the second level is impartiality in the development, establishment and recognition of the rules and laws themselves. It is not uncommon for laws and regulations to be set up in such a way as to create benefits for certain social groups or, as it is sometimes said, interest groups. Observance of impartiality in this case is more difficult. It requires equal representation and equal consideration of the interests of all social groups affected by the rule or law, and, where possible, individual citizens. Thus, impartiality is the most essential and universally recognized sign of justice. Another (besides the rule of impartiality and equal remuneration equal, and unequal - unequal) also quite universally recognized sign of justice is the rule of proportional retribution.

Listliterature

1. Volkov Yu.G. Sociology. Textbook for students of bonds; Ed. IN AND. Dobrenkova.2nd edition. - M.: Social and humanitarian edition.; R / n D: Phoenix, 2007-572 p.

2. Gorelov A.A. Sociology in questions and answers. - M.: Eksmo, 2009.-316 p.

3. Dobrenkov V.I. Sociology: Short course/ Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I.. M.: Infra-M., 2008-231p.

4. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Methods sociological research. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2009.- 860s.

5. Kazarinova N.V. etc. Sociology: Uch.d / university. M.:NOTA BENE, 2008.-269p.

6. Kasyanov V.V. Sociology: examination answers._r/nd, 2009.-319s.

7. Kravchenko A.I. General sociology: tutorial for universities - M .: Unity, 2007.- 479s.

8. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: A textbook for students of non-sociological specialties, natural sciences and the humanities. / Kravchenko A.I., Anurin V.F. - St. Petersburg et al. Peter, 2008 -431s.

9. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Reader for universities-M.; Yekaterinburg: Academic project: Business book, 2010.-734p.

10. Lawsen Tony, Garrod Joan Sociology: A-Z Dictionary / Transl. from English. - M.: Grand, 2009. - 602s.

11. Samygin S.I. Sociology: 100 examination answers / S.I. Samygin, G.O. Petrov.- 3rd edition.- M.; R/nD: March, 2008.-234p.

12. Sociology. Textbook for university students / V.N. Lavrinenko, G.S. Lukasheva, O.A. Ostanina and others / Ed. V.N. Lavrinenko - M.UNITI: 2009 - 447p. (Vulture UMO, a series of Golden Fund of Russian textbooks)

13. Sociology: Brief. thematic dictionary / Yu.A. Agafonov, E.M. Babaosov, A.N. Danilov and others / Ed. A.N. Elsukova.- R/nD: Phoenix, 2007.-317p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Rational substantiation of social justice in modern philosophy. Liberal tradition and rational substantiation of social justice in D. Rawls. Communitarianism and liberal communitarian theories: A. McIntyre, M. Walser, J. Habermas.

Justice is the greatest good. Just government and morality. Parts of the soul that Plato identifies: rational, affective, ideological. Main features public order. Plato's critique of the democratic state.

abstract, added 10/13/2015


The concept of social justice from a legal point of view. The main signs of social justice. Social state and problems of legal regulation of social protection of the population in Russian Federation. Modern social policy in Russia.

term paper, added 12/03/2009


Features of the concept of social justice, its phenomenality. The essence of the liberal understanding of the equality of all before the law and the need for justice for freedom. Man and law in social philosophy. Justice as a necessary aspect of law.

term paper, added 03/20/2012


Culture as a social memory of society. Economic culture and economic power. Social strengthening of economic action, labor and socialization, distribution, justice, exchange, self-affirmation, consumption and participation, income and status.

test, added 04/19/2009


The concept of social stratification and its relationship with social stratification. Causes of the emergence of social hierarchy and the functional purpose of stratification. Social justice and inequality in the modern world. The essence of the Gini coefficient.

presentation, added 01/18/2014


Definition of the category "justice" and the concept of "moral death". Ways of development of each quality of a person. Techniques for using your own capabilities. The demand for justice in the state and society. Loss of human conscience, honor and dignity.

test, added 11/21/2012


Class - main element social stratification of society. The emergence of classes. social classification society. Stratification of modern Russian society. The study of class consciousness: different approaches. "Middle class" in modern Russia.

abstract, added 04/04/2008


Stratification of social inequality in Soviet society. Distinctive features of modern Kazakhstani society. Main development trends social structure Kazakhstan. The upper, middle and working classes of modern Kazakhstan society.

presentation, added 04/12/2015


The essence, goals and directions of social policy, the main indicators of its effectiveness. Level and quality of life, consumer basket and consumer budget, social justice and the Lorenz curve. Social "Belarusian model of development".

Let's look at dictionaries first. In the philosophical dictionary, justice is defined as "the concept of due, corresponding to the definitions of the essence of man and his inalienable rights."
We learn that justice is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio-political consciousness. Thus, the concept of justice contains the requirements of correspondence between the practical role of various individuals (social groups) in the life of society and their social position, between their rights and duties, between deed and retribution, labor and reward, crime and punishment, the merits of people and their social status. recognition. The discrepancy in these ratios is assessed as injustice. As can be seen from this definition, the category of justice is both ethical, legal, and socio-political.
Justice as an ethical category is a principle that regulates individual behavior towards both other people and oneself. In relation to other people, justice opposes the selfish aspirations of a person and keeps him from harming other people. The so-called " Golden Rule morality" in its negative formulation "do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself" is directed to justice, and in the affirmative - "act in relation to others as you would like others to act in relation to you" - to mercy.
The main requirement of justice as an ethical category is respect for the rights and dignity of people. At the same time, “justice consists in the fulfillment by a person of his duties, guaranteeing the observance of the rights of people. Such obligations (fulfillment of duty) can be both legal in nature (due to legislation) and moral (due to the moral requirement for respect for human dignity in relation to another). Duties and rights are always in unity. If the observance of justice in relation to other people implies the fulfillment of one's duties (duty), then justice in relation to oneself implies the upholding of one's rights.
A special kind of justice is social justice, the subjects of which are large social groups, society as a whole, humanity. “Social justice is a system of social institutions that, not in single actions, but by its very structure, constantly ensures a distribution of political, legal, economic and other rights and material values ​​that satisfies at least the majority of members of society.”
There are different concepts of social justice. Depending on the ratio of justice, freedom, equality and inequality, the following can be distinguished:
1. Leveling concept. It comes from the closeness or identity of the concepts of justice and equality. The criterion of egalitarian justice is arithmetic equality. This type of justice is used in the field of civil law transactions, compensation for damages, punishments, etc.
2. Distribution concept. Distributive justice as a principle means the division of common goods according to their dignity, in proportion to the contribution and contribution of one or another member of society: here, both equal and unequal distribution of the corresponding benefits and benefits is possible.
3. Liberal concept. This is essentially a particular kind of distributive concept, in which, allegedly, it is possible to balance freedom and equality, make them support each other within the framework of an integral system of social justice.
From my point of view, the liberal concept is another fairy tale of the rich for the poor to feed them with illusions.
Now that we are familiar with the definitions, let's think about why people's ideas of justice can vary greatly, which, as a rule, leads to conflict situations in society.
And here I would like to acquaint readers with the concept on this subject of the modern religious scholar, bachelor of theology Nikolai Somin (http://chri-soc.narod.ru/opravdanie_spravedlivosti.htm). I bring it with abbreviations.
If you ask any of our Orthodox about such a subject as social justice, then, as a rule, we will see a negative reaction, because, they say, "Christ judged not by justice, but by love." And some of the priests will explain to us in a popular way that the thirst for social justice is nothing more than the envy of wealthy people, a shameful feeling that a Christian should shy away from. It seems that such an attitude to social justice just cannot be called fair, and we, including Christians, need to be more thoughtful about this concept.
But first - more about the subject of conversation. Even in ancient Rome, the general formula of justice was formulated: "to each his own, to each according to his deserts." This principle covers not only the sphere of legal proceedings, but also a huge number of other situations, when “to each according to his deserts” is especially relevant. These are situations of distribution of a limited number of goods. Quite often, every hour we solve this problem, or someone solves it for us. Actually, this formula in such cases is social justice.
The word "social" is very useful here. For there is always a "circle of distribution" - a kind of society. It can be local or global, but outside of society, the task of distributing wealth becomes meaningless. The social nature of social justice is also emphasized by the fact that this concept often includes a certain minimum of support for everyone - in other words, it is a social guarantee that society will not leave anyone to their fate.
But, despite the seemingly transparent meaning of the word "justice", the concept itself turned out to be very difficult. There is no clarity either on the issue of the norms of social justice, or in the essential sense of this concept, or in the conditions for its implementation. In addition, there are surprisingly few works devoted to his philosophical and religious analysis. But you need to understand.
Let us consider the following questions essential for the Orthodox consciousness:
1. Is social justice from God? Or is it a human institution? This is the main theological question on which the attitude to this phenomenon depends.
2. Justice and love. How are these concepts related? Is justice a completely different force from love? Or is there a connection between them? Or maybe it's basically the same thing?
3. Why is social justice so important to people?
Almost everyone talks a lot about justice, considers it necessary to observe it (although everyone has their own concept of justice). So what's the deal?
4. And is a society of social justice possible? Moreover, not in theory and principle, but in reality, on our sinful earth?

If you look closely, the Scriptures are unambiguous about the divine source of social justice.
The Old Testament tells how the Lord gives the Jewish people the Law, which can be characterized in one word - justice. This law did not allow large money and land holdings to accumulate in one hand. The law also obliged to pay the mercenary "before sunset", offered fair standards against theft and causing economic damage. Usury in relation to the Jews was completely prohibited. A payment system was introduced for the Levites, which excluded their poverty, but did not allow them to profit indefinitely.
The truth of God is the basis of justice in both the Old and New Testaments. And the Savior Himself, with His mouth, affirms social justice with great power: “Blessed are the poor”; “Woe to you rich! for you have already received your consolation.”
The Lord is so interested in the implementation of social justice that he is ready to make up for its lack in earthly life in Heaven. The retribution of justice in Heaven is a repeated theme in the Gospel.
So, the Lord Himself justifies social justice and demands its establishment. And therefore, a Christian must fight against its trampling, moreover, in this sinful world. And skeptical smirks about social justice are completely out of place. And the inability to distinguish the righteous thirst for justice from the sin of envy (which is inherent in people who just do not recognize justice) does not paint the pastor at all.
justice and love
The Old Testament is not only specific rules social justice. He gives a surprisingly accurate explanation of its moral nature. Here it is: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Indeed, the essence of justice is that in matters of distribution, everyone gets what they deserve, regardless of faces. And in this sense, I am in no way distinguished from other people. Therefore, accepting social justice as the norm of my life, I thereby affirm that I treat myself in the same way as I treat everyone else - no better and no worse. In other words: I love others as much as I love myself.
Of course, this is not a definition of a society of social justice, but only a characteristic of a just person. Moreover, we note that a person is by no means a saint - in him love for his neighbor is balanced by love for himself (ie selfishness). But this criterion makes it clear that social justice is impossible without a certain level of love among the members of society.
Love and selfishness are two of the most important moral forces that constantly appear in the Old Testament narrative. One can even imagine that in the Old Testament all events, people, institutions, and even peoples are, as it were, strung on a moral axis established by God. Above is God's holiness, love and truth, below is satanic selfishness and lies. Every human soul (establishment, people) occupies a certain position on the moral axis - if love prevails in it, then it is closer to God, if egoism prevails, then closer to Satan.
Of course, there is also a "zero point", where there is a parity of love and selfishness, where a person loves himself as well as another ... It would seem - cheers! Here it is, justice! But let's not blow the fanfare - this is just a point on the scale, but not justice itself. The point is very important, because it gives us a certain mental guideline, defines "normative" justice, but it does not reveal all the specifics of the concept. So let's go further.
Let us take a closer look at how the New Testament treats justice. On the one hand, the Savior confirms the Old Testament criterion, answering the question - "When will a person give to his neighbor as much as he receives?": "Love your neighbor as yourself."
But, on the other hand, it is noticeable that the Gospel, as it were, evades the discussion of the theme of justice. The pathos of Christ's preaching is that He brought the good news that His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Love, has come near. He gives the grace that allows you to become loving, and therefore to enter the Kingdom. As far as justice is concerned, Christ seems to be avoiding its fulfillment.
Here is an episode where two brothers ask Christ to divide the inheritance between them. Of course, it is fair to divide - after all, the Pharisees say about Him: “Teacher! We know that You are just." But Christ answers those who divide the inheritance: “Who appointed me to divide and judge you?” By this He seems to be saying: "You are striving for a fair division of property, but I want love from you." And here's another: "Let the greatest of you be a servant to all."
Again, justice is paradoxically denied: the greater should not receive more for his merits, but rather serve everyone. Or the parable of the workers in the vineyard: everyone received a denarius - both those who worked from early morning and those who came from the eleventh hour, contrary to what seemed to be obvious justice.
So what's the deal? And that justice is not at all a Christian ideal. For a much higher principle is proclaimed by Christ. This is Love. The New Testament ideal is pure love, love as a sacrifice, as a complete giving of all one's strength for the benefit of another. Christians should ascend to such an ideal.
But the starting point of this ascent to perfection is justice. Below "normative" justice on the moral axis, a Christian has no right to descend - then he is already outside Christianity, in the realm of egoism.
And the ideal of the society proposed by Christ is the society of love. All its various degrees and states are in the zone of love. It was him, the society of love, that the apostles created in the Jerusalem community. Oh, this society was much higher than anything that has existed so far, including all aspirations for a just society. “It was an angelic society,” John Chrysostom says about him. Moreover, his moral height was so significant that, in comparison with him, common notions of justice turned out to be a gross profanity. The case of Ananias and Sapphira confirms this. This couple was hardly a nest of complete selfishness. No, they, carried away by the general impulse, also at first decided to sell everything and bring the money to the feet of the apostles. But, apparently, a little later, "common sense" prevailed, and they decided to keep part of the money for themselves, just in case. Actually, why not - it will be so somewhere even on earthly justice: part to the community, part to yourself. They reasoned according to the usual laws of a fallen, loveless society. But it turned out that their act was completely incompatible with the new society of Christ's love. That led to such a sad ending.
Revealing to us the Jerusalem community, the New Testament completes the biblical classification of societies. Namely, three social alternatives are provided to mankind: "the society of selfishness", "the society of justice" and "the society of love". In the first - a society of egoism - the majority of the population lived before, and lives now. People in this society are selfish, and the laws of this society force them to be so. This society is under the rule of mammon, under the mask of which Satan himself is hiding.
The New Testament proclaims a society of love - superior type a society in which everyone, consciously and lovingly, serves each other. This is a “new commandment”, because it is impossible to achieve it within the framework of the Law - it is the fruit of the grace that Christ gives to those who love Him. And the boundary between these two opposites is the society of social justice, which the Lord requires us to realize.
But there is also relative justice.
The case of the Jerusalem community gives us another lesson: when in the realm of love the apostles restore justice, for they consider the system of common property introduced by them just - for Christians, of course. This means that in addition to absolute justice, which we have talked about so far, there is also relative justice. The bottom line is that in a society, even far removed from the "point of justice", its own, local norms of justice are still being developed.
By the way, the New Testament very subtly takes into account this case, saying: "And as you want people to do to you, so do you to them." In other words, the "point of justice" shows the level of "normative" justice (it must be said, the level is very high), but justice can also take place at a different level of morality - higher or lower.
There is the highest justice in the highest of societies (the Jerusalem community) - "and they divided it to everyone, according to the need of each." There is justice in the bandit gang (“you scrambled all our raspberries, and get a bullet for it”). But how strikingly different are these justices! Relative justice is objective, but it depends on the socio-economic relations prevailing in society, and those, in turn, on the level of love.
Distribution models, as you know, are different: “by strength”, “by capital”, “by labor”. Therefore, in the corresponding societies - criminal, capitalist and socialist - there will be different social justice. Thus, for a capitalist society, it is “fair” if the owner gets more than the worker, if the big firm eats up the small one, if the banker generally makes money out of thin air, and if the country, by printing green candy wrappers, gets real output for them.
Deviations from these norms in the direction of crime are considered dishonest and prohibited by law. And deviations towards socialism cause the bearers of capitalist “justice” to have a quiet rage and an indefatigable desire to eliminate such “anomalies” by hook or by crook (a recent example is Libya).
Note that the justice of the Old Testament is still below the "normative". This can be seen at least from the cruel norm “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, or from known fact double morality: for "ours", for the Jews - one thing, and for strangers - another. The Apostle Paul confirms this: “The Law made nothing perfect.”
Examples of various justices can be multiplied and multiplied. But even from the foregoing it is clear that justice, being a social phenomenon, arises in the form of relative justice in any society.
Moreover, it turns out that the sense of justice is the deepest feeling, akin to conscience, a feeling rooted in every soul, laid there by God Himself, a feeling responsible for the social life of a person. And that is why justice is so important to people. Although they interpret it differently, the very need for justice is obvious to the majority. And this is not at all surprising.
Even Aristotle defined a person as a “public being”, and, despite the whole personal orientation of Christianity, it is impossible to cancel this definition - a person and a person, and a part of society, and outside of society he cannot form as a person. It is the sense of justice that forms the social man, thereby determining the physiognomy of society.
Moreover, it turns out that relative justice is a measure of love in a society. The charge of love, as it were, materializes in the corresponding norms of social justice. As is love, so is justice, and vice versa. And if there is no justice (more precisely, relative justice is at a low level), then talk about love has a shade of demagoguery - it is absent in society.
Of course, love cannot disappear completely, but then it diminishes, goes into purely personal contacts, without reaching the level of social relations.
Finally, relative justice allows us to more accurately formulate the criterion for the stability of society. If a majority has formed in a society that supports the justice that exists in society (even if it is far from “normative”), then society will be stable. For example, for many decades our philosophers have been waiting for the collapse of Western capitalism, but it still lives and lives.
The stability of capitalism is due to the existence of such a powerful and inadvertently operating brainwashing system that the majority (both rich and poor) are for justice according to the formula "rich and strong wins." There is a consensus about their justice, and therefore no attempts to "revolutionize" the modern West have ever led to any serious result.
And vice versa, if there is no agreement in society, if there is a division into groups (classes) that understand social justice differently, then society is doomed to instability - conflicts, upheavals, revolutions, explosions of riots, and so on. This is our Russia.
Russians have always had a heightened sense of justice, and at a high, almost “normative” level. But far from everyone. Our hierarchical class system, both at the top of the power (property) pyramid and at the bottom of it, often gave birth to people of a different, lower justice.
When the justice of the upper and lower classes were linked - the nobles served, the serfs worked for the nobles, the free carried the "tax" - everything still held on. But after the decree of Peter III on the freedom of the nobility, the injustice of the system became unacceptable for the lower classes, which caused a revolutionary movement. It is our trait to prefer justice not only to satiety, but even to stability. Alas, she is now leaving, which is a sign of degeneration.
Now let's discuss the most difficult issue of realizing a society of social justice. But first we need to clarify the problem statement. What kind of justice are we talking about here - absolute or relative? First of all - about the first: it means justice at the "normative" level or close to it.
But there is also a relative moment here: such a society must be stable. So, is it possible to combine both properties in such a large society as, for example, Russia? It is impossible to reasonably answer this question right away - you need to start from afar.
How to understand how far a person can advance in the implementation of social justice? Social psychology has long and firmly identified two types of personalities - individualists and collectivists.
The collectivist sees in the society to which he belongs, as it were, his big family. He values ​​and respects the institutions of this society, obeys them not out of fear, but out of conscience. The collectivist works for society, tries to benefit it. And at the same time, he expects that society will not leave him in trouble, support him, give him the means for a decent existence.
The individualist, of course, also understands that he cannot live outside of society. But above all, he relies on his own own forces. For him, society is just a kind of environment to which he treats consumerism: get as much as possible, give as little as possible. And most importantly, society should not impose its own laws, its own morality on him. The individualist places his own personality above all else, believing that the less society restricts him, the better.
One misunderstanding needs to be cleared up here. It is sometimes said that the collective destroys the individual. Not at all. Both collectivists and individualists are full-fledged individuals. Only an individualist recognizes his personality as the supreme value and subordinates everything to its existence. The collectivist, on the other hand, humbles himself by consciously subordinating his will to the collective.
To better understand this division, let's compare the terms "individualist" and "collectivist" with another pair of terms: "altruist" and "egoist" (it seems that there is no need to explain them; we only note that Christianity calls people to be altruists, for Christianity is following the Savior, who loved people to death on the cross, and sees in selfishness the cause of all human sins).
It would seem that these pairs have completely different meanings. But, looking more closely, we will see that there is a connection, and a significant one: a collectivist is very often an altruist, and an individualist is mostly an egoist. Indeed, a collectivist, while respecting society, loves and respects the people who make it up. The individualist, on the other hand, denies society because he loves only himself. It would be wrong to say that this is always the case. There is a special type of people who exploit the collective, who love to exercise their rights without giving anything back to society.
Or vice versa, there are individualists who are determined to actively help people, but it is up to them to decide who to help. Nevertheless, the correlation between these concepts is very significant, and this gives us the right to consider the corresponding terms as synonyms in many contexts.
Both individualists and collectivists have their own justice. Only different. If for the former it comes down to the thesis “justice is in rowing towards oneself”, then for the collectivist social justice exists at a high, practically “normative” level.
But here we come to a pessimistic, but many times proven fact: there are more individualists. Unfortunately, in reality, most people love themselves much more than those around them. The commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” turns out to be not a reality for them, but only an unrealizable ideal. And for many, this commandment is just absurdity, idiocy and stupidity, over which, perhaps, one can only laugh.
And, nevertheless, the power of egoism (individualism) is not infinite, it has not destroyed the good in a person. Although it affects all people, it affects everyone differently and not everyone equally. Therefore, along with egoist individualists, there are (and always will be) altruistic collectivists striving to establish social justice.
And besides, there are differences between an individualist and an individualist. As a first approximation, they can be divided into two groups: the first kind and the second kind. About the second, the conversation is simple: they are real egoists who work only for themselves. These are almost impossible to fix.
But the individualists of the first kind are different - these are people with a conscience, people in whom the sense of justice has not atrophied. For the most part, these are honest people, with contempt for any kind of freebie. But at the same time, for one reason or another, they cannot reach collectivism: their shirt is closer to the body, they have to work for themselves (and for their family) in order to “break out into the people” - this is their justice. The individualists of the first kind include the majority of people who live by their own labor, primarily those who work on the land (peasants).
Is a social justice society possible?
Now it is already possible to come to grips with the question under what conditions it is possible to implement a society of social justice.
Individualists of the first kind are the majority of humanity. These are people, although they are trying to snatch for themselves, but still people in whom the voice of God has not yet been completely replaced by the ringing of gold, people, albeit not firm in goodness, but still capable of it. And if the voice of God reaches them, then they begin to understand the importance of social justice, accept it, demand its implementation, fight for it. But they can also be completely indifferent to justice, bumping into the trough of consumption.
And for these unstable souls there is a stubborn struggle. Capitalism is trying to eradicate the very concept of social justice from them, putting profit in its place. It's on the move whole system techniques aimed at lowering the cultural level, at replacing the spiritual with the material, at depicting sin in a favorable light. But the task is always the same: to drive into a person’s head the idea that you need to take care of the well-being of only yourself, and let others take care of themselves.
The answer to the question of the possibility of social justice depends on the outcome of this struggle for the souls of people. But victory can only be achieved by uniting all anti-capitalist forces, both right and left. Moreover, the necessary condition is the active participation of the Orthodox Church in this movement. In fact, it should spiritually lead the anti-capitalist movement.
The Church must say that capitalism and social justice are two things that are incompatible. And not only to say, but also to live in accordance with this principle. Then it will be believed by very, very many, even non-believers. And then it will be possible to change the psychology of individualists of the first kind in the direction of collectivism and the acceptance of truly evangelical, "normative" views on social justice.
As a result of such a spiritual and moral upsurge, the dreams of Holy Russia and Great Russia will acquire a real basis. Russia will regain its originality, including in acquiring its own inherent social system, which will be strikingly different from the West, approaching (in terms of economic structure) to Soviet socialism.
This is not heaven on earth. Where there! In the Kingdom of Heaven, life is endless, where "there is no sickness, no sorrow, no sighing." And this is just a society of social justice, where there is death and all the hardships of earthly life, but where labor is valued, and there are no forgotten and thrown out of society. And this system is possible, despite the sinfulness of human nature. All you need is the will to do it.
However, so far events are developing in a completely opposite direction: the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church has now set a course for a “symphony” with the oligarchic authorities, justifying capitalism and embedding it in economic institutions. The Church is actually removed from the struggle for social justice, reducing its social function only to " social work”, i.e. to targeted assistance to the weak and sick. As a result, this struggle (and this struggle is righteous, since justice is from God) will be waged outside of Christianity, mainly by left-wing forces, alas, prone to atheism.
Due to such inconsistency, it is not difficult to predict that the egoists of the second kind, who are now in power, will be able to maintain their power along with an inhuman and anti-Christian social order. At the same time, it is very likely that society will show its instability to the fullest extent, throwing out all the hatred towards new bars. A social, state, national catastrophe is approaching. Where it will lead - to the final death of Russia or, conversely, to its purification and miraculous revival - God knows.
But a third scenario is also possible. If those in power manage to win over individualists of the first kind, seducing them with the prospect of material well-being, then social justice will be completely forgotten. There will be a pig trough society with unsightly scenes of pushing each other away from the trough.
The danger of such a development of events is great, but, apparently, the world government has other plans: it is very afraid of Russia, and therefore decided to destroy the Russian people in the bud, leaving 15 million slaves to service the pipe. However, man proposes and God disposes. Let's see.
But what about the society of love, about which, on the example of the Jerusalem community, the Acts of the Apostles so inspiredly narrate? It is also possible with us, but only in local communities, communities created by groups of like-minded people. But all of Russia cannot become a society of love - we have too many individualists, both of the first and second kind.
However, for the existence of love communities, the nature of the “big” society surrounding them is far from being indifferent. It is extremely difficult for such communities to exist within the framework of a society of egoism - they hide, go underground or remain purely mental unions, like church parishes. Only a society of social justice will enable communities of love to develop, multiply, become models of life for a "big" society.
Let's briefly summarize. In striving for social justice, people are right, for this is God's command. They are right, because the sense of justice is a deep feeling, responsible for the social life of a person. They are also right in the sense that a society of social justice is achievable, even by today's humanity. Finally, they are right because only in the conditions of such a society is it possible to flourish the communities of love, which the New Testament tells us about. The justification of justice is what we Christians need if we want Russia to rise from the ashes.
Let me remind you that I cited the arguments of the Russian religious scholar, leading researcher at the Institute of Informatics Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences Nikolai Somin.

Reviews

Clever, evidence-based article, but not convincing. According to my many years of observations and reflections, people do not live by what they say, and not by what they think. People live by desires, feelings, passions. And you, Vladimir, strive to convince them with logic. This is your main mistake, because of which the dreams of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and others collapsed. The justice of the strong and greedy will never coincide with the justice of the weak or moderate. So far no one has been able to find the middle!

Thank you Victor for your feedback. For me, evidence and persuasiveness are synonymous. Persuasiveness is always related to logic. Another thing is if logic interferes with someone's interests. Like Lenin said: “If geometric axioms affected the fate of people, they would certainly be refuted.” Of course, there will always be those who are offended by everything that is unfair to them, unless, of course, this brings them a direct benefit. Although, regarding the discrepancy between "justices", there is this article. And the point here is not strong, weak or moderate, and not in search of a middle ground. The “consumption trough” interferes. People can be completely indifferent to justice, burying themselves in this trough. It was not in vain that it was noticed: “Life is strange: nothing for the poor, little for the poor, a lot for the rich, but enough for no one.” Capitalism and social justice are two incompatible things.
As for the dreams of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, then you are wrong. This is not a dream, but to a large extent a science that does not forgive mistakes in implementation. And yet - it’s not evening. Information about the portal and contact the administration.

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.

Equality

It is customary to distinguish four types of equality:

• 1) equality of people, or ontological equality;
• 2) equality of opportunity in achieving goals;
• 3) equality of conditions, when living conditions are equalized by law;
• 4) actual equality.

The idea of ​​ontological equality is usually associated with monotheistic religion. For example, Christian doctrine postulates the equality of people, above all their equality before God.

Equality of Opportunity concludes that all positions in society should be achieved through competitive selection based on educational achievement and personal talent. The increase in a person's well-being and the acquisition of property, moving to higher floors of the social pyramid and other achievements should depend not on his initial position, but first of all on the efforts expended by him, the degree of his industriousness, enterprise, efficiency, sharpness and other properties.

Idea equality of conditions aims to change society rather through reforms, rather than destroying the existing system of inequality.

Actual equality is an idea close to socialism. It implies the implementation of a program of political and economic revolution that eliminates the social causes of inequality. The goal of socialism is precisely the elimination of inequality. Radical socialism sees the main source of actual inequality in private property. At this point, the problem of equality intersects with the problem of individual freedom, since private property is one of the guarantees of such freedom.

social justice

Social justice is one of the most widespread social ideals. Its specific content, as well as its name, has changed throughout history, always being associated with a particular ideology.

Modern Russia is now undergoing a transition from a communist society to a democratic system. Under these conditions, the concept of justice is of particular importance: the new society that is now being formed in our country should be, first of all, fair society , moreover, fair in the sense in which it was not fair Russian society at any of the previous stages of its development. It can be said, "New Russia is, first of all, a fair country." All other characteristics of the emerging new Russia, such as the security of its population, its education and others, are secondary.

According to modern ideas, implementation of the principle of social justice in practice includes:

• equality of all citizens before the law;
• ensuring guarantees of human life;
• high level social security.

In particular, the implementation of the principle of social justice should include:

• ensuring the work of every able-bodied person;
• decent salary;
• social security of orphans and disabled children;
• free access of citizens to education, healthcare, culture, sports, etc.

Justice is the concept of due, containing the correspondence of deed and reward. Justice is the most important category of socio-philosophical thought, moral, legal and political consciousness.

The concept of social justice is widely debated. Many authors consider this concept internally contradictory and unacceptable. In particular, according to F. A. Hayek, the definition of "social" is applicable to everything related to the reduction or elimination of income differences. On this basis, Hayek considers the word "social" contradictory. The adjective "social" has probably become the most obtuse phrase in our entire moral and political vocabulary, writes Hayek. It is increasingly acting as the word "good" in the designation of everything highly moral. Any call to be "social" is usually pushing us to take another step towards the "social justice of socialism." As a result, the use of the term "social" becomes practically the same as the call for "distributive justice". And yet this is incompatible with a competitive market order, as well as with the growth and maintenance of the existing population and the level of wealth achieved. In general, because of this kind of error, people began to call "social" ("public") that which is the main obstacle to the very maintenance of the life of "society". In essence, "social" should be called "anti-social". Hayek considers it impossible to subjectively distribute the results of labor on the basis of the efforts expended by the worker: "No one can do what the market can: set the value of an individual contribution to the total product."

Hayek's student M. Friedman criticizes the concept of social justice from the point of view of freedom. The income tax, he believes, is not at all voluntary, but compulsory. Secondly, this tax reduces incentives to work, which in turn reduces the overall welfare of society. Friedman also sharply contrasts justice and freedom. "I am not a supporter of justice. I am a supporter of freedom, and freedom and justice are not the same thing. Justice implies that someone will judge what is fair and what is not." There are other positions from the point of view of which the concept of social justice is criticized.

Sometimes the concept of social justice is referred to universal ideals. Such a broad interpretation of social justice must keep in mind that social justice can be criticized from many points of view and that it changes its meaning in the course of the development of society. There is no reason to consider justice, as was sometimes done in antiquity, as an internal principle of the existence of nature, as a physical, cosmic order reflected in the social order.

Thus, social justice is a rather obscure concept. This, of course, does not diminish the importance of this concept.

The famous American political philosopher J. Rawls in his book "Theory of Justice" formulates two basic principles of social justice.

• 1. Everyone shall have equal rights in respect of the widest range of fundamental freedoms consistent with similar freedoms for others.
• 2. Social and economic differences should be arranged so that:
  • the least privileged members of society would benefit most from them, in accordance with the principle of responsibility to future generations and principle fair inequality ;
  • access to jobs and government positions should be open to all on the basis of equality of opportunity.

Rawls's book has been discussed for several decades, but no one has been able to find the justification for the principles of justice put forward by him. There is also no certainty that an effective theory of justice can really be substantiated with the help of the two indicated by Rawls. simple principles. One gets the impression that the principles he proposes are not clear enough to attempt to derive from them a meaningful and complete theory of social justice.

Rawls' approach is not without important shortcomings. Chief among them is that no clear distinction is made between the two types of justice: the understanding of it in an open and closed society. Rawls is an undoubted supporter of an open society; he mentions a closed society only in passing: this is the abstract, but immediately discarded alternative that confronted citizens at the time they concluded the "social contract". Rawls's advice on improving society on the basis of justice applies only to an open society. To realize a detailed plan for the reorganization of society, two polar types of social organization would have to be combined: an open society and a closed society. When Rawls's book was being written, the idea of ​​a gradual convergence of these poles was quite popular. However, later events, and above all the collapse of the communist closed society, have shown that the gradual convergence of post-capitalism and communism is just an illusion.