All parties throw around the term justice. But what is really fair? A little theory might help.
Justice is not achieved through a party, but in court Photo: Panama Pictures/imago
Again and again, parties swear how extremely “fair” things would be if they were entrusted with power. In doing so, they alienate this concept and that is presumptuous.
The FDP describes “four proposals for more justice” on its website, the AfD even demanded a law for “social justice” and the SPD called for “more time for justice”. How can it be that parties that could hardly be more different all use the same phrase?
What is striking is that in left-wing politics the term is often used as a synonym for “equality” and in right-wing politics it is used at best as a concession for “equal opportunities” with accepted unequal results. But the crucial point is: does a low-earner only feel it is “unfair” that the boss can afford more because of his situation, or would he feel it is “fair” if he himself were the boss? This makes it obvious how subjective the sense of justice is.
Obfuscate for knowledge
In order to detach the sense of justice from such purely pragmatic, often egoistic, demands arising from the individual situation and to neutralize it, the thought experiment of the well-known legal philosopher John Rawls helps. He suggested thinking about a fair distribution in society in an idealized situation, without knowing what role one plays in society.
What this Harvard professor has developed with his scientifically recognized definition is a liberal standpoint. It is about “equal basic freedoms”, even if the outcome is unequal. This is more convincing than the orientation towards factually existing equality and inequality. It is about “equal basic freedoms”, even if the outcome is unequal. However, the starting conditions can never be equal, as they are shaped by ancestry, educational opportunities, and so on. Because this is simply reality, redistribution must continue until people voluntarily give in to those above and below.
However, such political redistribution is not called “justice” but “welfare”, and in reality this includes, among other things, basic child benefits, citizen’s allowance, protection against dismissal and social spending.
In conclusion, it is meaningless when parties claim to be committed to “justice”. But there is nothing wrong with proclaiming “more equal treatment” or “more harmonization” or even “more state welfare” as political goals.
