Topics Justice

Question I have responsibility for planning long range infrastructure at a state level. The subject continuously comes up of equity and fairness in the setting of priorities. If the most equitable and sustainable solution for the future of all citizens requires some citizens currently to have less equity or do with less now: is this temporal inequity justified or fair, for the superior sustainable equity for all in the future? On the other hand, if we are fair to all now, the future will definitely be unfair for all and worse for some.

Accepted:
February 20, 2008

Comments

As you might expect, the answer to your question depends on what conception of justice you hold. One sort of utilitarian maintains, for example, that the right distribution will be the one that maximizes the greatest amount of welfare over the long run. So it will be permissible to have short-term inequalities if they promote welfare overall. If equity is a factor in welfare, then on this view it is OK to have short-term inequities in order to gain long-term equity. It is unclear, however, to what extent equity is important to maximize welfare. Another approach, then, would be to accept a consequentialist view that does not focus entirely on welfare, but recommends maximizing other goods, such as equity.

However, one complaint about utilitarianism, and consequentialism generally, is that it ignores the rights of individuals. So it is important to consider the sorts of things being distributed. For example, would it be permissible to deny voting rights to some people now if doing so would promote long-term equity, e.g., perhaps there is a subordinated group that has been denied education. If they are allowed to vote they will vote for someone who will support their continued subordination, but they don't realize this. If they are not allowed to vote, a more egalitarian candidate will win. Should they be denied the vote? Most non-consequentialist theories, I think, would say that the violation of their civil rights is not permissible, even in the name of greater equity. Other measures must be taken, in such cases, to inform them of the dangers of electing the candidate, etc.

One strategy that has been proposed for thinking about what short-term inequalities are permissible is to start by guaranteeing individuals their rights, and then to consider whether the individual getting the short end of the stick could reasonably assent to the scheme of distribution that gave them less. So you can't deny me my rights for long-term equity, but you can set up a scheme that gives me less stuff, if a well-informed and reasonable person could consent to being put in that position. This is still very vague because it isn't clear exactly what a well-informed and reasonable person could consent to. But it captures two important conditions: (i) individuals have some rights against being sacrificed or used for the greater good, even greater equity; and (2) beyond those rights, efforts should be made to guard against exploitation by only allowing those structures that those disadvantaged by them can (reasonably) endorse. This would allow inequalities in distributions of stuff (wealth, income, etc) if it could be justified to those who get less, e.g., by suggesting that they would get more this way than they would if there were an equal distribution because unequal distributions provide incentives for greater production.