Everyday Ethics

Justice is a funny thing.  Sometimes justice is about retribution, other times it’s better understood as a type of reconciliation.  Economically, justice also takes two distinct forms.  Some accounts of economic justice focus on an equal and fair distribution of goods, and many people point to the role of historical and social factors in shaping the uneven economic landscape that we see today.  This is worth thinking about, but conceals an important additional consideration.  Not everyone is equally capable, in terms of their natural ability to do certain things, and an economic scheme that places no weight upon merit would seem to be somewhat incomplete.  Questions of justice should also be understood as questions about merit.

What exactly is merit?  One way of thinking about merit is through the concept of desert.  For example, if I have an agreement that my employer will pay me $400 per week for completing certain tasks, and I complete them adequately, I deserve $400 from my employer.  Many rights also imply some form of this concept.  The right to freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial imply some notion of desert, because these are rights that are seemingly deserved in virtue of certain features that all people, or all citizens, share.

The idea of something being merited also carries normative force.  If I deserve to be paid a certain wage in exchange for doing work, I ought to be paid, and a wrong is committed if I am not given what I deserve.  Here the relevance of merits to justice should become clearer.  By failing to consider merit in our account of justice, we risk violating important rights that are morally significant.

Merit and economic justice are especially relevant to things like the economic bailouts that the U.S. government recently authorized.  Many taxpayers feel that they deserve a say in how their tax money is spent, and that at least some companies receiving bailout funds do not deserve them.  Some might go so far as to say that struggling companies deserve to fail.  Others might respond that the importance of a strong economy and the value of economic health merits whatever action is necessary to bring it about.  Whichever side one falls on, it is clear that we cannot talk about things like economic bailouts without talking about merit.

The most important consideration, one that is often overlooked by those who favor a merit-based conception of economic justice over an equality-based account, is that although merit is important, it’s not obvious that it is maximally important.  Many proponents of a merit-based view suggest that because equality-based distributions of goods would violate a person’s right to keep what they deserve, we cannot support an equality-based distribution of economic justice.  It’s not obvious that this is true, and a case can also be made that equality is more important than merit.

Whatever position one advocates, it’s important to note two things.  First, one must be prepared to accept certain consequences of their view, even if they are undesireable.  One must also be prepared to explain why what they value is more important than other considerations.  Asserting the importance of merit over equality, or vice versa, requires an argument to support it.  Often, one is best served by seeking a synthesis of important factors, rather than struggling to find an argument that justifies what is really only part of the relevant picture.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.