Economics, Finance, Justice: Finding a balance point

Justice as Fairness

Political liberalism, Democracy, Pluralism, Building A Consensus for Establishing Justice as Fairness

How will a well ordered society be established inside of reasonable pluralism and regulated by a political conception of justice? To answer that question, a distinction has to be made between how the establishment of justice as fairness will be set up and the larger society it will situated in. At this juncture, some general ideas about pluralism as it relates to justice are considered. The structure of our justice system has to be based on the political conception as opposed to more comprehensive doctrines including philosophical systems (Marxism, Socialism, Libertarianism) and systems based on religious texts, traditions teachings and doctrine. In a society that has a large number of contending systems of justice (reasonably based of course=pluralism), we come to a basic question-especially highlighted in the rhetoric of the Republican campaign of 2012: ‘How is it possible for those affirming a religious doctrine that is based on religious authority, also to hold a reasonable political conception that supports a just democratic regime?’ The key to our discussion on having all holders of the many pluralistic doctrines work together is to ask if the many doctrines are reasonable. There is no requirement here to tolerate the intolerable aspects of any world religion or philosophical system if the ideology for that system of thought or belief is not reasonable.

   A major obstacle for a conception of Political Liberalism to come into reality is that of writing a constitution that outlines a plan for a representative democracy; this constitution must establish a regime that ‘a plurality of reasonable doctrines may freely endorse.’ We moderns feel very strongly against establishing a Theocracy and will not tolerate the actions of those who strive to do so. We believe very strongly that religious toleration is an integral part of a well ordered society. Yet we can't establish a regime based on any one particular religion. We can however, come to a consensus based on our commonly shared ideas on what is right and what is just. A political conception of justice will have leave behind the pluaralisms of salvatory religion that guides individuals to religious purification. 'Political Liberalism considers whether in the circumstances of a pluarality of reasonable doctrines, both religious and nonreligious, liberal and nonliberal, a well-ordered and stable democratic government is possible, and indeed even how it is to be conceived as coherent. The concept of a well ordered society is considered here now; orderliness should be obtained for the right reasons, not, as is often done, through fear, intimidation as in the case of Mary Beth G, age 17 at the time she was apprehended by the police [Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1272 (7th Cir. 1983)]. She was subjected to an unusual strip search after being detained for stealing a purse and using the found credit card. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that “. . . .strip searches involving the visual inspection of the anal and genital areas [are] demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing, repulsive, signifying degradation and submission.” ¹ To establish justice then, we wish to strive towards basing our system of justice on commonly shared ideals or an overlapping consensus based on widely held ideas generated from social and scientific institutions-schools and colleges. We take these commonly held ideas and place them in a political conception of justice; the many pluralistic doctrines will be disseminated widely enough that an overlapping consensus may be found. We need to move away from a mere modus vivendi² as working together on the slim margin of safety found in such an agreement would prohibit reaching a deep commitment. A group or faction working under a modus vivendi might be thinking something along these lines: ‘We’ll go along with the general consensus for now and bide our time until our party can capture the whole of the political system and establish our doctrines as cardinal principles throughout the land.’This clearly is not what is being presented as a way of establishing justice. Further, a system of justice should stand independently on its own and be free of commitments to a Church, Faith or philosophical system so that every citizen may get on board with justice as fairness. What we now need to look at is how the transformation from the many plural doctrines to the political conception of justice will occur. For this a definition of a reasonable citizen will need to worked on.

Citizens are considered reasonable when they present discussion about justice that is based on their own terms of social cooperation-these may be drawn from their training and background in any particular belief system. After presenting thier own discussion, they are then willing to suspen their own beliefs while another person presents ideas they are putting forth in the same spirit; this involves holding off on judgement until the full impact of the presentor's ideas have been put forth. The terms put forth should be done so with the idea that the other party will reasonably accept them. Each party in the discussion must view themselves equal and free and under no indictment of inferiority from a belief system that places them on an unequal footing with other participants in the discussion;reciprocity is the key ingrediant. ‘Thus, political rights and duties are moral rights and duties, for they are part of a policitcal conception that is normative (moral) conception with its own intrinsic ideal, though not itself a comprehensive doctrine.’ [xliv]

In other words, we all have a moral duty to seek out and implement a system of justice that is fair and equitable.

References

The lines in quotations (with occasional page numbers) are from the Introduction to the Paperback edition of John Rawls' Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press (April 15, 1995) ISBN-13: 978-0231052498
1. A summary of what the 7th Circuit Court found about strip searched routinely done by the Chicago, IL PD; they were generally useless unless the situation clearly was prefaced by a suspect who was previously seen already to be motivated to hide contraband or weapons, here is an excerpt from the court summation:
The evidence the City offered to demonstrate the need for requiring strip searches of women minor offenders to maintain jail security, however, belies its purported concerns. The affidavits of the lockup personnel, which lack specificity, suggest that only a few items have been recovered from the body cavities of women arrested on minor charges over the years. In the only analytical survey submitted by the City, conducted over a thirty-five day period in June and July of 1965, all of the items found in the body orifices of the 1,800 women searched during that period were taken from women charged with either prostitution (7 items), assault (1 item), or a narcotics violation (1 item) (Ex. 7). These are the kinds of crimes, unlike traffic or other minor offenses,that might give rise to a reasonable belief that the woman arrestee was concealing an item in a body cavity. Although a detention center may be a place "fraught with serious security dangers," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 559, the evidence does not support the view that those dangers are created by women minor offenders entering the lockups for short periods while awaiting bail. Here, the "need for the particular search," id., a strip search, is hardly substantial enough, in light of the evidence regarding the incidence of weapons and contraband found in the body cavities of women minor offenders, to justify the severity of the governmental intrusion.
  2. Modus Vivendi- a feasible arrangement or practical compromise; especially : one that bypasses difficulties. From Wikipedia: Modus means mode, way. Vivendi means of living. Together, way of living, implies an accommodation between disputing parties to allow life to go on. It usually describes informal and temporary arrangements in political affairs. For example, where two sides reach a modus vivendi regarding disputed territories, despite political, historical or cultural incompatibilities, an accommodation of their respective differences is established for the sake of contingency. It is the bits about ‘bypassing difficulties’ and ‘accommodation of their respective differences is established for the sake of contingency’ that will not work for a true system of justice to be established.