To understand economic injustice one has to consider a lot of issues and discussions so as to come up with an imminent solution. The first thing to do is to try and define the phrase itself before talking about its meaning.
One straightforward explanation of justice is "giving to everyone what he or she deserves." The dilemma is determining what everyone deserves.
Functionally, "justice" is a set of collective ethics which steer people in judging what is correct and what is incorrect, no matter what traditions and society they live in. Justice is among the four fundamental virtues of conventional moral values, together with audacity, self-control, and efficiency (Nathanson 12).
While often puzzled, justice is different from charity. While justice deals with the regulations for steering common everyday human connections, charity deals with the spirit of these connections and those outstanding cases where severe use of the rules is not suitable or adequate. Charity offers measures during times of destitution. Charity requires us to give to reduce the affliction of a person in need. The uppermost intend of charity is similar to the uppermost intend of justice: to raise each one to where he does not need charity but can turn out to be charitable (Ryan 4).
True charity includes giving without any hope of return. However, it is not an alternative for justice. It is for this reason that economists and philosopher differ or seem to have a difference of opinions. Whatever the rich have worked for belongs to them, and it is unfair to ask them to share it with other people. However, humanity does not allow them shine in their cozy and extravagant life while the majorities are living in poverty (Nathanson 15).
It is expected that the poor should work hard to live good and comfortable lives. Some critics argue that if they receive the money or funding from the wealthy they are prone or likely to waste the money. The main problem is to identify or come up with a formula to give or distribute money and close the gap between the poor and the rich. To explain this issue further, we look at social justice from an economic perspective (Kapstein 36).
Social justice includes economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which directs us in making those controlled human relations we call institutions. In turn, when social institutions are impartially structured, they offer us with admission to what is appropriate for the person, both in person and association with others. Social justice also inflicts on everyone an individual task to work together, to plan, and constantly perfect foundations as tools for personal and social progress. If this understanding is anything to go by, the all the wealthy people owe a part of their wealth to the community. This is because most if not all the wealthy people have at one point used the social institutions directly or indirectly to gain their wealth (Nathanson 65).
Economic justice touches the individuals, as well as the social order, includes the ethical principles which steer us in planning the economic institutions. These institutions establish how each one makes a living, exchanges goods, and services with others, enters into contracts, and if not produces a self-governing material basis for his or her economic sustenance. The eventual reason of economic justice is to free each one to engage artistically in the infinite work beyond economics, that of the mind and spirit (Kapstein 46).
Like every organization, economic justice engrosses input, output, and reaction for re-establishing harmony or balance between output and input. Within the system of economic justice, there are three vital and inter-reliant principles: The Principle of Distribution, The Principle of Participation, and The Principle of Harmony. Like the legs of a stool, if any of these ideologies destabilize or miss, the arrangement of economic justice will crumple (Nathanson 75).
The Principle of Participation
The principle of participation depicts how one creates an "input" to the economic procedure in order to earn a living. It necessitates equal opening in gaining the right of entry to private assets in productive assets, as well as an equal opportunity to take on any productive work. The principle of participation does not promise equal outcomes, but demands that everyone should be assured by society's institutions the equivalent human right to make a fruitful input to the economy, both through one's work as a worker and one's fruitful resources as an owner. Thus, this principle casts off exceptional privileges, dominations, or monopolies, and other exclusionary social obstacles to economic independence (Ryan 44).
The Principle of Distribution
The principle of distribution characterizes the "out-take" or "output" rights of an economic scheme coordinated to each person's work and capital inputs. In the course of the distributional characteristics of personal assets within an open and free market, distributive justice becomes by design connected to participative justice, and incomes become connected to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice engrosses the inviolability of assets and agreements. It turns at no cost and open market, not administration, as the most purpose and democratic way for shaping the just price, the just profit, and the just wage (Kapstein 66).
Many confound the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. According to the previous definition of charity, "to each according to his needs,” the difference from distributive justice is focused on the statement "to each according to his contribution." A mix up in these principles pilots to continuous disagreement and shortage, forcing the administration to interfere excessively to uphold social order (Nathanson 54).
Distributive justice breaks down when all people do not get equal openings to obtain and enjoy the fruits of income-producing assets. Putting this principle in the argument gives a clear way to the poor to put more effort and at the same time gaining from the rich class of people (Kapstein 26).
The Principle of Harmony
The principle of harmony includes the "response" or matching principles to identify alteration of either the output or input principles and whatsoever rectifications needed to re-establish a just and unbiased economic order for all. This principle fights unfair barriers caused by contributions from monopolies or by some using their assets to hurt or take advantage of others (Ryan 34).
"Economic harmonies" is defined in The Oxford Dictionary as "acts of community alteration under which the self-centeredness of an individual or group of people, under free play, will generate outcomes offering the utmost gain to other men and the entire society." This principle presents strategies for controlling monopolies, creating balance within social institutions, and building checks and rethinking outtake with input. The initial two principles of economic justice stream from the undying human hunt for justice in general, which by design necessitates a balance between output and intake, that is, "to each depending on what he is due." On the other hand, the principle of harmony reflects the human pursuit for other supreme values, including Love, Truth, and Beauty (Ryan 99).
Distributive justice is frequently considered not to belong to the capacity of economics, but there is, in fact, a significant literature in economics that tackles normative issues in economic justice and social economic. A range of economic theories and approaches offer many insights in these matters. Many have tried to explain how economic justice can be achieved. However, it contradicts itself by trying to take what one has worked for so hard and in turn give it to a lazy person. This will not be considered justice by many, though it might be fair when the rich give freely from their pockets to those in need. This might be monitored to ensure that the less fortunate get something from those who are fortunate and have access at their disposal. When talking about economic justice, there are other issues that are of concern, for example, do people have a right to decent jobs and wages? Is the welfare aid given to the poor justice or charity? Is it fair to tax the rich more heavily than other workers? (Nathanson 29)
Truly, the gap between the poor and the rich is growing bigger and bigger each day. In the United States, for example, the gap has been widening for some time. Since the records were put in place in 1947, if this is compared to the earnings of 2006 the gap between the poor and the rich has increased by almost 50%. This is in terms of household and national income the rich have gained 20% of it while the poor get only 3.3% of the national income. These rates leave us with no option but to imagine of the middle level workers who struggle to make a living by working hard, but all their hard work is taken by the executive. Therefore, it is up to the administration to cut and incorporate economic justices to salvage this situation and force the rich to give some part of their hefty salaries to the poor. However, this should be done cautiously to avoid making or creating a group of people that may lazy around and wait for the rich to work for them (Ryan 84).
Economic justice is a terrific program that can enhance and develop national economic growth by a big margin if well implemented. It is only the less fortunate that should be considered and given the share of the rich people cut. The administration should come up with a way to enforce this program and determine the people in need. If only people in need get this share then it will be considered economic justice, but if it is directed to the wrong people then it will not meet its initial purpose.