Every idea comes to a final judgment when it is made into a tool of practical use. An idea eventually faces its adult life and the responsibilities that come along with it. The idea has to live up to its promises.
The pragmatic test is clear for the technological products of science, but I suggest the same test can be laid on more abstract principles. If abstract rules and beliefs assist their follower in the quest for virtue, beauty, and truth, we can say that such rules are good to believe; they are for all intents and purposes, true. A map is only good if it gets you somewhere, and abstract concepts function the same way. If a map cannot help you find where you are, or point in which direction you should go, it might as well not be a map at all. No one would buy it.
A large part of Hayek’s career was dedicated to putting the elusive concept of social justice to the pragmatic test.
To discover the meaning of what is called ‘social justice’ has been one of my chief preoccupations…I have failed in this endeavor – or, rather, have reached the conclusion that, with reference to a society of free men, the phrase has no meaning whatever…I have come to regard ‘social justice’ as nothing more than an empty formula, conventionally used to assert that a particular claim is justified without giving any reason. (Hayek 1967, 57)
Social Justice has “no meaning whatever” not because it is impossible to come up with a definition. Principles of Justice will only survive the pragmatic test, if they are able to recommend real guides to those who can follow them. In a free society, when the outcomes are the result of human action but not of human design, justice cannot be determined by distribution outcomes as no one is responsible for designing the total array of who gets what.
Appeals to social justice typically take the following form: “Our society is unjust because Group X is in such a position relative to Group Y. Society must take Action Z (usually some government policy) immediately to rectify the situation.” There is no such actor Society that can satisfy these demands. “…the demand for ‘social justice’ is addressed not to the individual but society—yet society, in the strict sense which it must be distinguished from the apparatus of government is incapable of acting for a specific purpose” (Hayek 1982, 228).T
Hayek wants us to return to a form of justice that is applicable at the individual level, a form that he calls “the rules of just conduct”. Here justice is determined by clear, distinct, and followable rules such as property, contract, and consent. These rules are unique in that they are end-independent, impersonal, and universally applicable to all (Hayek 1982, 197). Their universality doesn’t prevent them from being adapted to any particular circumstance. The rules of just conduct directly apply to individuals and are designed to be followed. Each rule is not set in stone, but the criteria that Hayek suggests of end-independency, impersonality, and universality are needed to make each rule followable. Equality of opportunity is granted meaning because, at least respect to these rules, everyone must be treated equally for us to say that justice is done. Justice to Hayek must always be a negative case that no rule has been violated, and never a positive one that some outcome has been achieved.
Milton Friedman claimed that “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom” (Friedman 1980, 148). He strikes at the same problem. Equality of outcome is another name for social justice in that it lays its claim against the outcome of the decentralized acts of a free society, and not the conduct of any living member. Friedman, however, continues, “Freedom means diversity, but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s disadvantaged to become tomorrow’s privileged and, in the process , enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life” (Friedman 1980, 149). Hayek is right that individually followable rules are necessary to apply the idea of justice to individual behavior, but the rules are not the ultimate end. We respect each other’s liberty in order to maximize the possibilities for individuals. The respect of life, liberty and property are crucial, but they don’t satisfy all of our moral demands.
Hayek leaves many unsatisfied. He tends to leave an impression on the reader that justice should only be conceived as negative rules. There are reasons that social justice activists demand something greater than the basic rules of just conduct. Equality of outcome is something that people really do care about, and failing to address these concerns is failing to address real moral claims. These higher demands may also properly be called justice. One of my childhood neighbors was the only man on our street to own
Next week, I talk about the moral psychology of Adam Smith and work closer to a practical moral philosophy.
Bibliography:
- Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. (1980) Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Harcourt.
- Hayek, Friedrich. (1967)“The Atavism of Social Justice.” New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Idea.
- Hayek, Friedrich. (1982) Law, Legislation, and Liberty. Routledge. 2013 ed.
