“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others,” declared the revised commandment of the animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Some of the more vocal members of the so-called Occupy Movement point to the vast disparity of incomes in the United States and see there an Orwellian scenario.
“Injustice!” they cry.
The wealthiest people — the top 1% — have experienced the greatest income growth in recent years; the 99% have seen smaller growth. The rich aren’t getting richer while the poor get poorer — all income groups have increased in wealth. But the vastly rich have gotten much wealthier (hundreds of times so) than the not-so-rich and the poor. Justice demands equality of income, say some Occupy supporters.
But does it? A principle of justice, long ago articulated by Aristotle and received into the Catholic Church’s ethical tradition, applies: Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.
Does justice demand the same income or the same increase in income for all? In other words, does justice require economic equality? The answer depends on what we mean by economic equality.
Should the surgeon, with much-in-demand abilities, be paid the same as the night janitor, with much-less-in-demand skills?
If we should treat unequal things or persons unequally in proportion to their inequality then justice actually demands inequality here. The surgeon and the janitor shouldn’t be compensated the same because their skills aren’t equally valuable.
Some people will object that both the surgeon and janitor have equal dignity as human beings. But that doesn’t mean they should receive the same compensation for unequally valuable work.
Americans understandably stress equality. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal …” The equality in question there is fundamental human equality, to which the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers: “Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same Divine beatitude: All, therefore, enjoy an equal dignity” (1934).
All human beings are said to be created equal because they have the same origin (God), possess the same nature (human nature), and all have been redeemed by Christ and called to the same destiny (union with God). Consequently, they all possess fundamental equality.
But fundamental equality — which the Catechism says entails equal personal rights (1935) — doesn’t mean human beings are equal in all respects. “On coming into the world,” the Catechism states, “man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The ‘talents’ are not distributed equally” (1936).
Note the reference to differences of “benefits derived from social commerce and the distribution of wealth.” Such differences or inequalities are part of God’s plan. His intention is that those with particular gifts use them to benefit others (1937).
Of course, unjust inequalities exist: “There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace” (1937).
Fundamental human equality requires all human beings be treated equal in certain respects. But differences exist among human beings that can lead to just inequalities, including inequalities of wealth. In such instances, requiring equality would be unjust because the persons in question are in a key respect unequal. While unjust inequalities can exist, including injustices of economic disparity, the mere existence of economic inequality isn’t unjust.
What about the claims of some in the Occupy Movement? Here we can make a few observations.
First, we need clarity regarding the economic value of work. The only meaningful economic measure is the value attached to work by those willing to pay for it. If people are willing to pay the 1% more for what they do than people are willing to pay the 99% for what they do, then the 1%, all other things being equal, ought to receive more for what they do.
Second, although the market determines the economic value of one’s activity, there is also the human or ethical value, rooted in one’s dignity as a person. “Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it,” wrote Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus, “there exists something which is due man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity” (35).
The “something which is due man because he is man” is the same for all human beings. Fundamental human dignity and equality give moral value to a man’s effort to provide a decent life for himself and those for whom he is responsible. Consequently, everyone should have or should be able to obtain wealth sufficient to lead a decent human life because of what is due to people as human beings.
In other words, every man should be a “have” when it comes to a certain minimal level of economic resources; no one should be a “have not.” There should be, then, fundamental economic equality, even while justice sometimes demands economic inequality for wealth over and above the fundamental minimum. Justice requires fundamental economic equality, not absolute economic equality.
When some folks in the Occupy Movement decry the disparity of wealth, they err if they think unequal wealth is itself unjust. Different activities can justly have different economic value, even vastly different economic value, and thus people can justly receive vastly different incomes or vastly different rates of income growth.
On the other hand, if someone has less than the minimum any human being naturally needs in order to lead a good human life, that situation contradicts fundamental human dignity. Such an inequality of condition shouldn’t exist.
The challenge for those seeking social justice is to create a society in which everyone is a “have” — everyone can from his labor or other sources of income generate sufficient wealth to meet his moral obligations to himself and others — while ensuring that those whose work is economically more valuable receive their due, in proportion to its greater economic value.
Supporters of absolute economic equality go too far. But the Christian will be alert to the spiritual dangers of prosperity and its moral demands. Even wealth obtained honestly through hard work and the free exchange of the market can endanger one’s spiritual condition. What’s more, radical disparity of wealth poses grave moral challenges, especially when some people lack what they need to lead decent human lives. Greater wealth entails greater responsibility for the common good, which includes establishing fundamental economic equality. Jesus warned how hard it is for wealthy people to enter the Kingdom of God. With God, even this difficult feat is possible, of course. Yet, Jesus insisted, “To whom much is given, much will be required.”
Mark Brumley is an author of numerous books and articles and serves as CEO of Ignatius Press.
Mark Brumley: Aren't You Ashamed?
Edward Pentin: Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Comments
Post a Comment
I can understand the frustration of the 99ers, for you seem to have missed the whole plot. There is no argument that a doctor and janitor should make the same income, and I find nothing in the quoted catechesism that addresses the issues of the 99ers. What about the Catholic economic principle of Distributism? No man has a right to monopolize an industry for his and his family’s gain, ie the Walmart family. No man has a right to make money without work, ie large swaths of the banking industry, the speculators, etc. It is immoral that the wealthy are paying 15% capital gains taxes when capital gains are how the wealthy make money, ie they don’t work for a pay check. I noticed that you wrote, “...if someone has less than the minimum any human being naturally needs in order to lead a good human life, that situation contradicts fundamental human dignity…” However, the more salient point would be “...if someone has MORE than any human being naturally needs in order to lead a good human life, that situation contradicts fundamental human dignity…”
“The surgeon and the janitor shouldn’t be compensated the same because their skills aren’t equally valuable.”
...Until the toilet clogs at 4:55 p.m. and nobody else wants to deal with it…just try not having one (my office doesn’t).
“Consequently, everyone should have or should be able to obtain wealth sufficient to lead a decent human life because of what is due to people as human beings.”
In other words, we should fight poverty. And we have. With the exception of the insane, the addicted and their dependents there is now very little real poverty in the United States.
Here ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor ) is an interesting recent study showing that according to US census figures the average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor European, has full kitchen amenities, a car (a third of the poor have two or more), two color televisions, a DVD player and VCR, and if they have children they were likely to have a game system like an Xbox or Play Station as well.
Further, the home of these families was in good repair, they were able to obtain medical care when needed and the family was not hungry, having sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.
I believe that this is why the discussion of poverty has been changed into a discussion of inequality. It is a Marxist priority to always push for redistribution of wealth by the government.
Christopher,
First Walmart does not have a monopoly on anything. Everything they sell can be purchased at dozens of other establishments. They have a business model that allows them to assert certain influences and charge lower prices. I guarantee you that no one gave them that ability. It was developed by shrewd business acumen of their 1%. As to your comment about bankers not working, where on earth did you come up with that gem. Note to Christopher, just because some banks close to the public at 4pm doesn’t mean that the bankers stop working at that time. And as for your last point about making too much??? That is totally relative. There are a lot of places in this world where whatever you make is much more than what is needed to maintain human dignity. Maybe YOU should give up more of what you have. I don’t know you, but I do know that even what we consider “poor” in the US is 10x more than what “poor” people in Africa, Asia and Latin America have. Also remember that those that have more tend to give more than those that have not.
Are the Occupiers actually demanding equality of income, or equality of opportunity? A surgeon’s or janitor’s wages, in this country, are not determined by a free-market. Protectionism, government granted monopolies (eg: pharmaceutical patents), taxation and other forms of public policy have a profound effect on “market” rates. This is particularly true of our inefficient healthcare industry, but also seen in government regulation of hair braiding, wooden casket making, interior design (to mention a few recent regs in the news). When the cost of __________(insert: healthcare or any other commodity) is artificially inflated and people are forced to pay higher prices, the “market” unjustly benefits some (1%?) at the expense of others (some other %). Insofar as the Occupiers are protesting this kind of injustice, it seems that they have a valid point.
A great job Mark, now it is too bad that Christopher & Margaret are in another world. Margaret get off of the Internet & out into the real world and you will find real poverty among our own people. What about the poor Indians “living” on reservations or the people in Alaska (I know it should not even be a state of ours) & how about all of the poor people in the Appalachians that Clinton stupidly insulted when he “visited” them? How many poor do you have in your own neighborhood that you don’t even know? What did Jesus tell us about the poor & how many times did He attack the businessmen & the rich while He was with them? I worked for over 50 years & I don’t get what those crooks in D.C. get when they “retire” but I am NOT going to march or protest at their mansions as this is NOT WHAT GOD WANTS FROM US. As long as a person gets their income honestly (leaves out a lot of politicians) & they are not hoarding up their money as many of the 99s are doing, there is NO PROBLEM. +JMJ+
The elitism of the original blog and one of the responses -“there is now very little real poverty in the US” is depressing, especially in Catholic news media. Being Roman Catholic at one time meant being liberal and a Christlike champion for the poor. There are a few vestiges left, but today we can accept a congress that for the last decade or two has unraveled the laws that allowed a prosperous middle class and made the rich filthy rich. They are not satisfied. In the face of the current crisis the Supreme Court defined a corporation as a person allowing them to pour as much money into the political process as they want. (They stopped just short of ...In the image and likeness of…) Good gracious industry already completely owns the Republican Party and much of the Democrats - and the Supreme Court! They’ve driven some 40,000,000 Americans below the poverty level. What more do they want? How much is enough? I also note the comment challenging the quote that “all men are created equal”. He also said: “...a government of the people, by the people and for the people…” and before we perish from the earth with the revolution now brewing I pray that good old Abe is reincarnated and replaces the clowns now vying for the Republican nomination.
One of OWS’ biggest weaknesses is its ability to set a clear and coherent program and stick to it. Right now, and I don’t mean to sound uncharitable, or unduly harsh, because I support them in general, far too many of their “leaders” seem to be mouthing platitudes and slogans that make for great press coverage, but only serve to shoot them in their own feet and render them looking woefully uninformed.
It’s not that they don’t have a valid set of claims and arguments. They’re simply botching what they’re setting out to do and that should be primarily to shame the living hell out of the one percent remakes of FDR’s favorite foil, “economic royalists.” It shouldn’t be terribly hard, but the kids aren’t helping their cause, too. No wonder Fox is getting away with its smear campaign by chery picking the most off-the-wall statements and letting some clownish “host” like Steve Doocey and his side-kicks Brian Kilmeade and Gretchen Whatsherface mangle the rest of the story. And as we all know when cherry picking begins, a lot of stuff is deliberately left on the editorial floor.
Margaret, your contention that “... With the exception of the insane, the addicted and their dependents there is now very little real poverty in the United States,” which you based upon a Heritage Foundation report is simply astounding (for starters, it’s overwhelmingly insensitive and arrogant dismissal of the economic conditions so many Americans are faced with.)
For this reason, I strongly urge you to visit Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ Senatorial website http://sanders.senate.gov/ and take a look at the story about Mr. Wheeler who is facing a drastic reduction in his fuel assistance allotment. And after you read about Mr. Wheeler’s situation, would you please ask yourself if he falls under the catch-all catagories you listed above? In other words, we should fight poverty. And we have. With the exception of the insane, the addicted and their dependents there is now very little real poverty in the United States.
Would you care to retract those words? I certainly would welcome such a development, not to mention say many more volumes about hour spirit of Christian compassion.
After you’ve read Mr. Wheeler’s story, skip down a little to “Struggling Through The Recession” and click the red button to download this publication. It’s poignant and it’s not just the story about Vermonters, but it does a wonderful job of capturing the situation faced by many fine fellow citizens who were not only tossed out of their jobs through no fault of their own, but they also lost their savings, their homes and their dreams to the most avaricious and predatory clique of wheeler-dealers this nation has seen: period. And have any the the bums who ripped off not only these people in “Struggling Through the Recesssion” been tossed into the clink? Not a single one. (For that I lay the blame mostly on AG Holder’s shoulders.)
Most liberals will agree with conservatives that the Framers and Founding Fathers only set out to create a legal environment whereby every body has the legal right to a “fair start” so to speak. And they would be spinning in their graves to hear the likes of a mealy mouthed manchild who earned his millions the old fashioned way, (inheritance) and by buying companies, dumping employees and getting bonuses for making these new companies he “restructured” as “more competitive.” Mmmm, some job creating demonstration of equal opportunity shown by one of two top leading contenders for the GOP nomination.
And, if Romney is correct, in saying “corporations are people, my friend” ... where’s the equal standing between an individual of even upper middle class means versus a major corporation or even a domestic college or university sitting on billions of dollars in endowment funds?
Instead of hiding behind some think tank’s abstract philosophical/economical and political talking points paper, it’d be far more advantageous to your position to fall back on the sports pages or look for quotes from successful ball players and contrast them to those who weren’t so successful on their respective playing fields. To wit, just think of all the ball players in Reggie Jackson’s time who didn’t make nearly half as much as he did; nor did their batting stats come close to his. Could anybody call him outrageously arrogant when he said ” I put the meat in the seats”? Even his late BOSS and sometimes nemesis, Yankee owner George Steinbrenner couldn’t disagree with that. He had to pay, but he got his money back, several times over.
If a man or woman can prove he or she has earned whatever blessings that’s come his/her way, I sure as heck don’t want to hear of them standing behind the likes of Grover Norquist who’s blackmailing the Republican Party to make sure these uber welfare queens who were born on third base will never have to pay a dime in inheritance taxes.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.