This is a repost of an article originally published on the Catholic Social Teaching blog of St Mary’s University (https://catholicsocialthought.org.uk/).
Discussion of the term ‘social justice’ generates quite a bit of heat and some confusion. This probably arises because of the way in which, in secular circles, ‘social justice’ has become almost synonymous with justice in relation to how incomes and wealth are distributed. This particular concern in Catholic social teaching falls under the conceptually distinct (though not entirely practically distinct) domain of distributive justice – that is, the set of criteria by which we determine how the goods of this world should be distributed between people.
Social justice is about how our actions promote the conditions for the achievement of the common good. The object of social justice is society as a whole. The common good, in turn, represents ‘the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection.’ Thus, we promote social justice when we promote the conditions necessary for all to reach perfection or fulfilment, and we promote injustice when we undermine these conditions for some or for all.
For the common good of the whole of society (such as the whole country) to be achieved, it must be achieved for communities within society. For example, there are particular features of the common good that relate to schools – such as not promoting an atmosphere of fear amongst children. While this is the responsibility of the school, the common good of the wider society depends on the promotion of the common good within these local environments, such as schools. Different associations within society have their own common good, and the common good of all associations within society contributes to the common good of the country as a whole.
Even if we struggle to define social justice, most Catholics know it when they see it. We correctly describe a whole range of activities as ‘social justice’ activities (such as the way we treat migrants and refugees, how we support those leaving prison and victims of crime, and how we treat those who have been trafficked).
It is also important to note that addressing offences against social justice is likely to affect the distribution of income and wealth, perhaps greatly (addressing corruption, for example) – social and distributive justice are related even if conceptually distinct.
Indeed, in the first papal encyclical to mention the idea of social justice by that name (Quadragesimo anno), a strong link was made between social justice and the material position of the working classes. Without distributive justice we will not have social justice. If some do not have the basic goods they need to flourish, society will be beset by misery, envy and conflict. In addition, some will lack the material things they need for a dignified life and, if some people lack these things, society as a whole is scarred.
In Catholic teaching, the advancement of both distributive justice and social justice is the responsibility of each and every member and institution in society, starting with the family, and we can illustrate this using the Parable of the Prodigal Son. While the deeper meaning of the parable concerns God’s justice and mercy and the requirement not to be self-righteous, the depiction of the social and economic relations between the family members offers an interesting perspective on distributive and social justice.
The parable begins with the younger son asking for his share of his father’s wealth. His father gave him that share. It would appear that distributive justice was achieved – the younger son got no more and no less than was due to him. However, he then went off and wasted it on a life of debauchery. Although he led a terrible life, there was no obvious offence against distributive justice: it was his inheritance to waste. He then suffered greatly, living amongst the dirtiest animals. It may seem harsh, but many people would think that his parlous situation also met the criteria for distributive justice. He had been a rich young man and wasted his money; did he deserve more than to live in poverty?
He then returned to the father, who welcomed him and held a party to celebrate his return. The dutiful elder son, who had never left home, was greatly upset at the apparent injustice of rewarding disobedience. The father took the trouble to explain that the elder son would get his half of the fortune too: ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.’ In other words, the father is explaining that strict distributive justice has been achieved. As far as the father is concerned, the relationships between the individuals within the family, at least in relation to the distribution of property, were not damaged.
But what about the family as a miniature society? What about the common good of the family?
Importantly, the common good cannot be distributed – this alone suggests an important distinction between distributive and social justice. If a business partnership exists it will have assets in which partners have a share. Hopefully, the business will also thrive because of bonds of trust and other forms of goodwill between the partners; perhaps the partners will have a similar, praiseworthy moral outlook towards each other too – these are part of the conditions that promote the common good within the business. And maybe the business has excellent personal relationships of trust with other commercial partners. If the business is dissolved, distributive justice is done if each takes his or her share of the assets. However, the members cannot take away their share of the common bonds and moral outlook that have been necessary to create a thriving business: the common good cannot be distributed. However, I can act to promote, or destroy, the common good of the business. Interestingly, in accounting terms, the ‘goodwill’ of the business is that part of the value of the business over and above the value of the assets. However, the goodwill only exists if the business is maintained in some form. You could describe goodwill as the ‘common good premium’.
Returning to the parable, while distributive justice seems to be achieved, the common good and social justice within the family are not restored – though much would depend on the behaviour of the two sons as the story developed beyond the narrative in the Gospels.
Whilst the younger son was away, there were clearly rumours about his behaviour. The younger son promoted waste and debauchery in wider society. Within the family, he created fracture, disharmony and, no doubt, caused his parents to be greatly concerned in a way which could have eaten away at them, mentally and spiritually. The younger son destroyed the conditions necessary for the common good within the family as well as negatively impacting on the common good of society through his collusion in a culture of sin. His actions led the elder son to be resentful on his return. That resentment is, in itself, a problem and a barrier to restoring social justice and the common good within the family. Perhaps the younger son was in despair at the elder son’s resentment, as he had done what he could to make amends on his return. The behaviour of the elder son may have made the father despair too. The conditions necessary for the family to have harmonious relationships with each other and with God continued to be undermined. The family was potentially riven with disunity and, disharmony, leaving their relationships fractured and the conditions for the common good in their small family community, and by extension the wider community, sorely absent. Social justice and the common good were restored in this case by forgiveness, understanding, tolerance and a real desire for each family member to contribute to harmonious relationships within the family.
If the common good of society as a whole is to be achieved, then the common good of its constitutive elements must be achieved too – for example, in families, schools, communities, associations and business. We each have a responsibility to promote the common good and social justice in all the institutions with which we are connected – and we all belong to the nation as a whole, of course. Just as the common good of the country cannot be achieved without the common good of its elements being achieved, the government of the country has a responsibility to ensure that certain conditions exist that support the common good of families, schools and businesses. Distributive justice is important in any country, society or association. But, as we see from family relationships, work relationships and elsewhere, there is so much more that we need for a happy and fulfilled life: we also need social justice.
Image: The Prodigal’s Return by Edward Poynter
Philip Booth is professor of Catholic Social Thought and Public Policy at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham (the U.K.’s largest Catholic university) and Director of Policy and Research at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. He is also Senior Research Fellow and Academic Advisor to the Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics.