“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.
Comments
Post a Comment
If it weren’t for the poor, how would we learn charity? God has a plan for the poor. Do not neglect them. On the other hand, why is it wrong to earn what you can? If some person is clever enough to ask for a contract to be hired, and in that contract, also ask for a parachute, and some some company is fool enough to give it, well, don’t blame the man for being clever enough to gain financial securities. There is no Union for the rich, he has to get what get can for himself.
I am a meager cook. In some places they call me chef. I have hundreds of ideas. But I’m building my reputation for being able to do this one thing well, so that investors will trust me with bigger things. I’m poor right now, but it will pay big dividends later. I just hope that there isn’t some vain butthole trying to take my slice of the pie, what I’m working for, what I am poor for and sacrificing for right now. I know what I’m worth today, and what ill be worth in 2 years. I am calculating it.
And I think that is where most of the elder poor fail. They fail to calculate. Yeah, I know there are single parents. I’m a single parent who also put himself through college. Anyone else can do the same. This is America homeboy, anyone can get anything. If there is something you don’t have, blame yourself.
Because really, at the end of the day, this is not about the money, these things never are. This is about Power. Some folks have power, and someone else wants power. Look at Chavez, look at every Socialist revolution ever. Nothing changed economically! They didn’t magically become more prosperous because of perceived economic equality. Economic equality, true equality is not about having the money, it is about having the opportunity. So really, these <1% who protest on behalf of the other 99% are trying to convince all of us that that we lack opportunity. I see opportunity around every corner. I have no couch, no kitchen table, no coffee table, no stereo, no lawnmover, my car breaks down all of the time, my son’s mother is always asking for more money, the child support is more than my rent. I got a lot of “ain’t gots”. But what I ain’t got is any reason that I cant make my dream come true. There isn’t some evil millionaire holding me back.
Nope. It’s like I said, this is about power. The weak of mind are being used to foster a socialist agenda that they aren’t even aware of.
I just watched a tv. program called “how evil am I?” It attempted to recreate the Millgram experiment. Watch it, cuz I ain’t explainin it. But it concluded that despite 60 years of so-called “progress” in America, nothing has changed in human beings in America for the better. In fact, we have become worse. Remember the sensitivity training that we went through for 20 years, from 1985-2005, every corporation in America did it. What did it change? Nothing. It did not make us more sensitive to others. It succeeded in making us more sensitive about our perception of ourselves, and not necessarily for the better. It was all vanity. Nothing changed. Except who has power. Political influence over another. It was an epic fail.
But we are not better off as an economy because of tolerance. We tolerate far more evils in this world now than before, in America than in any other country. Sexual evils, physical violence, extortion, exploitation, these things aren’t happening in Vietnam for the pleasure of the Vietnamese. I know, I lived there. I also lived in Croatia. You know what they don’t have? Our problems. You know what they do have? Moral lives.
Everywhere America goes, we spread disease of the mind and spirit. And we corrupt people into believing that we have a better way. We have better opportunities, but we are devils, disguising sin with so-called equalities.
We need not protest THAT this or that person has money, we need to protest THAT this or that person lacks morality. But there is a certain 1% in America that has the specific agenda to destroy our morality in favor of tolerance. They know how to gain power too. They have occupied positions in the media, in education, and in government. They teach your kids from first day of school to last, and gave far more influence than parents. They are the surrogate parents of your children. And they want your children to become occupiers too.
Thanks for posting this excellent essay. It’s one of the best short pieces I’ve seen on this topic in a long, long time.
Very clear review of the principles applying to those willing to work. Would appreciate the wisdom of this author on those unwilling to work; What if any responsibility do wealthy have toward those who suffer poverty as a natural consequence of sloth; what principles guide discrimination between indigent and indolent, especially in light of scripture cited below:
Romans 4:4-6; New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
2 Thessalonians 3:9-11; New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would [a]follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Thessalonians+3:9-11&version=NASB
Very clear review of the principles applying to those willing to work. Would appreciate the wisdom of this author applicable to those unwilling to work; What if any responsibility do wealthy have toward those who suffer poverty as a natural consequence of sloth; what principles guide discrimination between indigent and indolent, especially in light of
Romans 4:5 “to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” and
2 Thessalonians 3:10: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
What about people who make bad choices in life and choose not to go to college or trade school after they get out of high school and later when they look for work can’t find a job which pays above the minimum wage? And later gets married and has a child on the way. And say it takes at least twice the minimum wage for him to support his family. Is any employer obiligated, out of a sense of the human dignity of this family to pay at least twice the minimum wage for someone who doesn’t have the skills to be paid that much? Shouldn’t the person be responsible to take on one or more part-time jobs to earn what it takes to support his family? And shouldn’t he also take it upon himself at some point to return to school to learn a trade or profession if he is mentally capable of doing so? My parents had to do these things just to make ends meet and that’s the way it was in times past before welfare, food stamps, etc. But today, people can oftem make more from government benefits which encorage them not to seek work, any kind of work. To me that is unjust, not only to the individual receiving government assistance, but also to the working taxpayers who have that money forcefully taken from them by the government which leaves less money for their family.
Won’t somebody think of the rich and the powerful,
Struggling, and doing their best?
Oh, why must we always be focused on helping
The meek, or the poor, or oppressed?
It’s time to revisit our social supports
With a view toward adjusting priorities
We’ve largely neglected some long-suffering groups
So it’s time to protect our majorities
Our culture is sexist; that’s patently true,
And examples pop up, now and then;
But the biggest of victims is largely ignored—
It’s the most oppressed group: that is, men
See, men are expected to work and be strong,
While women just have to be pretty;
Sure, men make more money, but that’s not enough;
What they need, and deserve, is your pity
Whatever the circumstance, men are the victims
Through bias, or willful neglect,
But that’s not the story you’ll see on the news,
That’s politically oh-so-correct.
And of course, there are Christians, throughout our great land,
Who are constantly thrown for a loss;
Their second-class status is thrown in their faces
Each time they erect a new cross!
They ought to be able to show their belief,
Placing icons on public display—
But removing these things from our federal land
Is against the American Way!
When privileged majorities can’t have their way—
When they’re treated the same as the rest—
When they’re no longer special, just one among many…
It shows that they’re being oppressed.
I’d be curious to know how much a white male correspondent at the Register makes…
Also, I’d like to know how much harder a corrupt banker works than a struggling single, high school educated, Latina mother of 2 whose husband left her for a younger woman..
While I agree with some of what you’re saying, I think the point you are missing about Occupy is that so much of the calls against the 1% is that there is really NO ethical way for people to make that much more than the rest of us. In addition, it is typically white male privilege, greed, and corruption that got them there, NOT hard work!
I think we can all agree as Catholics that there is something wrong in a society where people do not receive equal opportunities through equal education access, nor do they receive equal opportunity to express their human dignity through work when jobs have disappeared, as is currently happening today.
The 1% doesn’t word harder than the rest of us, period. The rest of us do the work of bringing the Kingdom on Earth here yet still struggle. That is the true tragedy.
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.