Dear Readers,
plf find this my so-called criticism on modern theories of Distributive justice…There was no one around in family and friend in the rang to criticize so I went to that extend to find some ppl think of them smart…and touch guys…when i criticized them then i recalled critisim over criticism that it is most easy job…so I went to make it up, a bit more, to suggest wht they missing…As all Roads lead to Rome…so do they…I conclude…u (esteemed readers) r MOST WELCOME to say whtever u like, if this is any way appealing to u…Pls feel free to digest and chew this so-called intellectual feast…and tell me how we can IMPROVE IT…
Modern Theories of Distributive Justice in of Islamic Perspective
Islam every thoghts and practice comes from basic equation - Faith equation- that God is one, we are accountable to God in the day of jdugement- life is physical and spritual matters and every activity is linked and come to thresholds of unity of command and guidance…life has two parts, one in this world one in hereafter… utility- satisfaction----in terms of products, shld bear two aspects of utlity one ---- physial and other spiritual…
Islam - Rationalizing Emotional (Divine Wisdom)Faith
Islam is known as a religion of justice and its code of life is an expression of God’s Will for justice. It is only divine justice, which establishes unique equation between the rights and responsibilities among people and nations. The doctrine of Islamic justice sets out a simple rule that every human being should receive his rights from others and give to others what are their rights. No one is to be treated with injustice nor to be allowed to deal others with injustice. All divine religions and moral codes have duly recognized the importance of justice. Aristotle (384-322 BC) said that justice is not a portion of virtue but the whole of virtue; and injustice - the opposite of justice - is not a portion of vice but the whole vice.
The Islamic Economics holds the basic thrust to establish distributive justice in human polity. It provides a real insight of wealth - being a means to the ends of physical and spiritual growth of individual and society. It relies on divinely gifted framework to pursue the goal of equity and distributive justice. It bears two important features - firstly it sets up market distribution and efficiency mechanisms within moral and social framework. Secondly, it puts forth the redistribution system featuring the tools and measures which remove to the core, any imbalances and inequalities that may arise from free and efficient functioning of market. By this way Islamic Economics successfully protects society from splitting into ‘elite groups’ and ‘down trodden groups.’ It distributes ‘rewards’ and ‘sacrifices’ among the members of society on the basis of their capabilities and human considerations. It takes effective measures to ensure that those members of society who are disabled and less talented are provided with all basic necessities and other amenities of life. The Islamic vision of distributive justice holds the supreme rule that the Islamic State should provide food, cloth, shelter, education, medical facilities, equal opportunities, freedom of speech, dignity and other human rights to every member of society (Hasan, 1988; Ziauddin, 1991).
4.1 John Rawls Distributive Justice Philosophy: Justice as Fairness
John Rawls foresees the distributive justice behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. He argues that future is unknown to everyone and so is what hidden in it for someone - profit or loss, success or failure, economic prosperity or depravity. Ridden by self-interest, everyone desires to reserve or ensure a ‘secured or better position’ in future, even if it comes by giving away a part of his economic wealth or possession. The uncertainty about future- veil of ignorance- obliges the rich or talented members of society to surrender their wealth or economic possessions in favour of poor or less talented members of society. The fear - veil of ignorance – acts as a primary stimulant or source to ensure distributive justice. John Rawls allows economic inequities but only if they benefit even the least advantaged individuals in society. He does not support strict and fair equality but allows greater monetary rewards for the talented individuals. The fear of veil of ignorance also convinces the less gifted people to allow greater share of wealth to talented people, who under the same fear, allow a part of their acquired wealth for the betterment of less privilege members of society (Rawls, 1971).
The economic agents, under Rawls theory, are given inadequate information about future and its characteristics, ‘secured benefits or position’ and the ‘bundle of economic sacrifice’ they are obliged to make. The deal is not very fair and square. The right of people to have access to information and freedom in decision making is almost denied. People are not made it known what is bargained at what price. Rather, they are put under tremendous pressures to gamble on their future. The future is shown very bleak and horrifying and people are made anxious about it, and then their anxiety or ignorance is exploited, though with fair intentions, to take away a part of their wealth which they rightfully hold and may not be willing to surrender otherwise. It is only ‘fear’ not a reality or truth that they would find themselves in helpless or unsecured position in future.
This theory, however, bears no real incentives, rewards, freedom of choice, motivation and other normative values. People are forced to adopt the benevolent or social behaviour under a kind of threat and coercion to their own wellbeing. If talented people would find that ‘risk premium’ they have paid to obtain a ‘secured position’ in future is out of proportion or unjust, they would feel that system is unjust or over-sympathetic towards the less talented people, who are benefited at their cost. They would refrain from putting their best efforts which may handicap the state of optimal productivity and growth. Furthermore, it would trigger mistrust, hatred and class conflicts in society leading to serious social, political and economic upheavals. These can be the eventual outcomes or consequences of taking fancying on self-interest to evolve any form of distributive justice. The reliance on self-benefits and self-serving forces can hardly bring up a truly benevolent economic behaviour. Rather it can precipitate highly unpredictable, fragile and unsustainable form of distributive justice. Furthermore, this theory does not suggest any means and measures or well-defined framework to translate its ideals about distributive justice into realities, it just relies on a single factor - progressive taxation.
Running along with Rawls theory, Islamic doctrine offers more realistic and pragmatic view of distributive justice. In Islamic perspective, ‘future’ is extended to this life as well as the life hereafter. The faith on the day of judgement and eternal life of hereafter is like ‘veil of ignorance or mystery’ because a faithful person holds the unshakable belief on their happening in future. So the uncertainty or veil of ignorance prevails for every one in terms of his accountability before God on the day of judgement. In order to get a ‘secured position’ - success or prosperity - eternal salvation - in this life and hereafter, the talented and rich people voluntarily give away their wealth to poor and less talented people of society. The Islamic outlook of Rawls theory is based on free will and eternal realities and there is no room for compulsion, fear, uncertainty and speculation. People are provided with all relevant and reliable information about future and they are also told about the means and measures that can be adopted to ensure a ‘secured or prosper position’ - eternal salvation’ in future. It is rest assured that people are making well-informed decision with their free will. After meeting the perquisites and by relying on normative values such as altruism, motivation, incentives and rewards the divine expression of distributive justice can be substantiated in human society with its real essence and substance.
4.2 Right Libertarianism
The right libertarianism’s vision of distributive justice allows unlimited freedom to an individual, provided his actions are not making other people in a position which is worse than the one in which they were before his actions (Hayek, 1944; Narveson, 1983). This theory presents over simplistic and passive version of justice. It has taken for granted that the ideal form of distributive justice or wellbeing of society has already been achieved and it is only required to sustain it, by not allowing any member to benefit himself at the cost of others. It is hardly possible to achieve any satisfactory state of distributive justice in a society which members are not under any moral and social obligations to contribute towards the wellbeing of others. When individuals are allowed to exclusively reserve the economic rewards of their efforts to themselves, without making any sacrifice and meeting social responsibilities, distribution of resources would remain far from satisfactory. Even if it is best understood and implemented, this theory can only preserve justice but can not establish and restore justice. The neutral or passive attitude is not enough to establish or restore distributive justice because it cannot cope with the state of distributive justice which is diminishing or decaying. Someone should actively and aggressively contribute towards distributive justice and welfare of society and that should be taken as the foremost and supreme objective - if a person is not a part of solution then he is the part of problem. So if the actions of an individual are neutral or value-free, he is definitely causing harms to distributive justice. Critically speaking, this theory holds very naïve vision of distributive justice.
The Islamic approach of distributive justice is far superior to right libertarianism theory. It is neither neutral nor passive but pragmatic and motivational. It not only forbids an individual from making other people worse off but also advises him to take actions contributing towards his own wellbeing as well as society. An individual is a part and parcel of society and his happiness and welfare is directly linked and depended on the happiness and welfare of others. Every act of individual or market should benefit the individual as well as society. The economic activities should be value oriented to aim at establishing the most accomplished form of distributive justice.
4.3 Left Libertarianism
The doctrine of left libertarianism gives equal rights and ownership of resources to all members of society irrespective of their abilities, and later on allows them freedom to make their fortunes on the basis of their abilities and efforts (Steiner and Vallentyne, 2000). It overemphasises ‘fair equality’ at the beginning and completely overlooks it afterwards. It offers a situation like a marathon race where all contestants are put at one ‘starting point’ and then they are advised to run as fast as they can to win or beat their opponents. So people are taught to chase their own self-interests and wellbeing without caring about others and taking any social responsibility. This theory swings between two extremes situations. On one side, it puts all individuals of society at par without giving any regard to very core factors like individuals’ talents, birth status, fortune, disabilities, etc. On other side, it lets people to be by their own to acquire wealth and resources as much as they can, without making any contributions towards the welfare of less talented and disabled people of society. This theory firstly establishes the ideal form of ‘common equality’ in society by absolutely denying the natural abilities of an individual and his birth, family, social and economic rights. But then it promotes ‘gross inequalities’ by making natural abilities of a person as the sole and legitimate criterion to acquire wealth and resources without holding any moral and social responsibilities towards others.
In the absence of a well-placed restorative or redistribution system, this theory can envisage only the worst situation - the survival of the fittest. The talented people would eventually win the resources given in the hands of less talented people. So this theory proves itself the beginning of the end of distributive justice. The concept of putting all individuals of society at the tarting point to distribute equal share of economic resources among them is too vague to be implemented. To give equal share of wealth to every member of society, it is required to take away wealth from rich people by force, which might cause serious socio-economic and political turmoils – a civil war - leading to bloody revolution like the Communist Revolution in the early 1900s which proved all it vain to the distributive justice (Andrew, 1995; Applebaum, 2003).76 This theory grossly ignores natural qualities and socio-economic liberties of human beings at the wake of creating an economic order -fair equality- which is neither thinkable nor achievable in the real world.
The Islamic philosophy does not subscribe the left libertarianism’s search for the distributive justice within two unjust and wild ends. Rather, it holds that economic and social differences among people on the basis of their birth and abilities show the divine wisdom to put people on the trail in this worldly life. These differences are also great means to establish and promote sustainable and efficient economic order in society based on mutual trust and cooperation. However they are allowed to run within normal and social bounds. On the one hand, the talented people enjoy their economic freedom and fruits of their hard labour. On the other, the poor and less talented people are guaranteed with the means to livelihoods under the guardianship of Islamic State.
4.4 Utilitarian
Under Utilitarian theory, the distributive justice can be achieved by making fair and equal distribution of resources to every individual in society. It is regarded as supreme goal to achieve maximum possible wellbeing and happiness of society as a whole. So all wants and preferences of society should be collected and summed up by consulting its members and then total wealth is should be used to satisfy these needs at their utmost. This theory is based on a slogan: one extra dollar means much less to millionaire than to a beggar. It does not demand for equality on strict lines rather it seeks a midway between the extreme equality and the extreme non-equality (Darwall, 2006; Schultz, 2004; Sidgwick, 1907; Stein, 2006).
It is hard to make decision of that ‘extra dollar’ which must be given up by a rich person in the favour of poor. The richness cannot be defined in ‘definite term’ and no cap can be placed on it. There is no end to greed for money and possession. The wealth one person holds look to him too less and he wishes to have it more and more. The more he gets, the more his hunger grows for it. So the person’s thrust to acquire wealth always remains unquenched. This theory does not offer any moral incentives and motivations to individuals for making voluntary payment of that extra-dollar. Therefore, it must be implemented by active support from State. If the State would fix the cap on richness or wealth, the individuals ridden by self-interest would never put their efforts beyond the point where fruits of their hard labour would be regarded as ‘extra dollar’ that might be given to the poor. If talented people cannot take away the whole package of their wages, it would handicap, partially if not wholly, their rights of private ownership and free market mechanism leading to serious socio-economic imbalances. This theory does not offer any viable solution to the problem of distributive justice. The Islamic doctrine of distributive justice does not support the utilitarian idea of using any kind of external force for its implementation on a free will of people. Rather, it relies on normative values, moral reinforcements to persuade people for giving the ‘extra dollar’ and what more they can afford to spare for the betterment of those people living at the bottom of poverty lines.
4.5 Pluralism
Pluralism theories hold that unique and different criterion should be used to distribute different goods and resources in society. For example, rewards and punishments should be distributed according to desert, jobs according to ability, medical treatment as per needs, etc. So people in different spheres should be rewarded on the basis of their abilities. However, an individual should not use his privileged position in one sphere to get a privileged position in other spheres. By this means even highly gifted individuals of society would not be able to acquire maximum benefits in different sphere or most of the spheres because of the natural limitations to their abilities and time. So inequalities would prevail in society but not at a large scale (Walzer, 1997).
This theory offers more competitive market environments that might evolve better chances to establish distributive justice in society. In a real world, however, people use their privileged position in one sphere to clinch benefits in other spheres. Like investment portfolio, people also diversify their self-interest portfolio. It is mostly like that a person holding economic power would use his wealthy position to acquire social and political powers. Also, it is like an egoistic and empire building game. When the self-interest is allowed to be pursued it can be pursued by all means and using all means – every thing is fair in love and war – a war of greed to get maximum benefits and resources. Furthermore, all human personal and social institutions are interlinked with each other in such a complex manners that it is hardly possible to divide them in isolated and independent compartments with their own unique and different criterion for fair and meritorious distribution of resources.
This theory does not count on moral and motivational measures to develop a system of self-discipline among human beings. It does not aim at putting any internal check and balance mechanism in individuals and society. The reliance on strict rules and procedures can not stop people from pursuing their vested interests. The more rules we put in to enforce the distributive justice the more we miss to achieve it. By developing many and varied criteria, this theory makes the issue of distributive justice highly cumbersome and complex, far from sight. It also promotes polarity and conflicts in human activities and departments. The Islamic teachings ordain personal and social institutions of human beings on unity principle. Under the divine scheme, all departments of human society are closely linked and bear profounds impacts on each other. They are subjected to the unity of command to manage their affairs with harmony and effectiveness from their inside and outside. The Islamic distributive justice system relies on moral and spiritual beliefs and training, which create self-awareness and sense of self-accountability among individuals. They do not use their privileged position outside the legitimate boundaries. The Islamic doctrine develops moral conscious, based on faith - faith in life hereafter and accountability before God and eternal salvation - to translate the high ideals of distributive justice in Islamic society.
4.6 Strict Egalitarianism
In very simple and strict version, the strict Egalitarianism philosophy holds that all members of society should be given equal amount of resources and happiness irrespective of their abilities or whatsoever. (Carens, 1981; Nielsen, 1979). The main objection which can be raised against this theory is that it nulls and voids the right of private ownership, economic freedom, spirit of competition and entrepreneurship. This theory is not mindful to the fact that mentally or physically retarded people require greater amount of resources and wealth to meet their needs. It also tends to develop a culture of economic parasites. The wealth and resources would be produced by hardworking and talented people only but lazy and less talented people would get equal share in them. Having no special rewards and personal gains, the talented people would not put their utmost efforts into work. This may cause inefficiency, low productivity, poor economic growth and threats to overall stability of the country.
The efforts of substantiating distributive justice under this approach might plague the society with corruption and socio-economic and political destabilization. If human beings are pressed too much to surrender their freedom and rights of private ownership, they become more rebellious and determined in pursuing their vested interests. This theory is based on the Marxist’s vision of distributive justice, which was adopted in early 1900s by State levels in USSR and its allied communist countries. However, the Marx’s quest for distributive remained in a wild search over 70 years before it met with its natural death by the fallout tragedy of USSR and its allied countries in 1990s (Andrew, 1995; Anne, 2003; Elster, 1985). The beginning of the co-called Marx’s era of distributive justice inflicted millions of deaths and sufferings on human beings, its practice registered the worst type of injustice, corruption, inefficiency, an its end caused the colossal socio-economic and political disasters to modern human society.77 Quite contrary, Islam offers highly educational, motivational and self-disciplinary approach to establish distributive justice in society. The Islamic vision holds private ownership rights, freedom of choice, market efficiency and economic benevolence as central pillars to establish the distributive justice in human polity.
A BIT ON PARETO OPTIMALITY OF WELFARE IN MARKET…
Aristotle argues that the successful life is the one which is virtuous and rewarding. The success and happiness not only count what we get and possess in life but also what we contribute towards the happiness and success of others.18 The economic behaviour is a core part of human character and it makes profound impacts and contributions towards the moral excellence in character. Achieving moral excellence is the true pathway to spiritual enrichment and material prosperity for humanity. It must be the supreme goal for humanity for its own sake. According to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as means only.19 In Islamic perspective, moral excellence comes from pinning one’s faith in the supremacy of ethical values in life. The business ethics in Islam are rooted in faith and they are very predominating force to discipline the person’s self-interest. The adherence to virtues in the business world brings true success and supreme happiness in the life of human beings. The Islamic business ethics hold the altruistic vision to ensure a true welfare for human beings at individual as well as collective levels. So faith in the Islamic business ethics fills the gap of morality in market that is left a wide open by Conventional Economics.
To ensure a general wellbeing of people as the supreme goal of society, Islamic Economics keep a tight rein of moral principles on market instead of leaving things in invisible hand. It sets up efficient market mechanism within ethical and social boundaries. It appreciates the Pareto20 optimal state by allowing the market agents to benefit themselves without inflicting any harm on others. However, it rejects the Pareto claims that once the optimal state is obtained any utility-increasing redistribution cannot be achieved by voluntary market exchange because someone would have to be made worse-off in order to increase the overall level of utility. Beyond the Pareto optimal Horizons, Islam explores spiritual aspects of ‘utility’ and self-interest. After acquiring the Pareto optimal state, the Islamic Economy further takes up the utility-increasing redistribution process. The rich people exchange their (extra or spare) material utility (wealth) for enhancing their overall utility (material plus spiritual- ideal or greater value of utility). They improve or increase their own spiritual utility by giving away their wealth to poor members to enhance their overall utility (material utility). It is purely voluntary market exchange, where value (wealth-material utility) is exchanged for value under mutual benefits and without making any party worse-off (spiritual utility – eternal salvation). Their act of giving charity or making sacrifice for others is the high yielding investment in the long run (life hereafter). It is most ethical and efficient investment in the market of faith.
Kind Regards
Impressionist