Is Inequality Unjust?

This one could get me in trouble. Bear with me.

Part of my journey into post-liberalism has been a process of reevaluation. Certain values intrinsic to American liberalism do not fit what I have come to understand as the first principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Recently, one of those reexamined values has been equality. When I was a kid, “equality under the law” was touted as an authentically American value. It is necessary everyone is treated the same under the law. But is that just?

It certainly protects the weak. But it also disproportionately benefits the strong.

A just society is ordered towards the flourishing of its members. Yet, in every society, even our own, there are clear inequalities. A parent is not truly equal to their child. I am not truly equal to the president. There is a clear inequality in these two instances, but they are natural and just. It seems then that justice and perfect equality are not synonymous.

A parent and a child and the president and myself are equal in an important way: we all have human dignity. If this is what is meant by equality, then fine. But I do not think this dignity is protected by equality under the law. It turns a blind eye to the fact that power imbalances are real in our world. The farm owners in *Grapes of Wrath *were just as “equal” as the Joad family under the law, but Tom Joad was hungry and needed money. Under the law, they were two independent actors entering into a mutually agreed-upon contract. In reality, this was a member of the ruling class exploiting a member of the working class.

Equality under the law is not enough when we refuse to recognize natural power imbalances. Inequality exists. There will always be someone with more money, more power, more influence than someone else. If we pretend there is not, we give the powerful free reign to exploit the inevitable inequality.

Inequality is not inherently unjust because it does not always have to be exploited. Especially when you take into account the Catholic conception of equality: that we are all equal in dignity. When those with power recognize our equality of dignity and inequality of power, those without power actually *benefit *from the inequality.

Inequality Can Be Perfectly Just

That last idea is probably the strangest. If you walk up to someone on the street and say that inequality is not always a bad thing, they would probably think you held some obscure political opinion. And they would be correct. Reality is quite obscure sometimes.

When we think of inequality, we think of inequality of dignity. This kind of inequality is inherently unjust and needs to be eradicated. However, when inequality of power is deployed well, it is beneficial to all.

On a recent New Polity podcast, Dr. Andrew Willard Jones makes the point that in nature, power imbalances work in harmony. For instance, acorns do not have the power to become oak trees without water. In a sense, water has “power” over the acorn. But this power exists for the good of the acorn! Water gives something of itself to the acorn and makes it flourish. Water is not “better” than the acorn, it is simply more “powerful.”

Similarly, parents have power over their children. They have something (human maturity) that the child cannot obtain on her own, so the parents have to give something (moral formation) to the child to help her flourish. Those who have a certain power are able to give to those who do not and in doing so, both parties are elevated. One by being given something higher and the other by contributing to the common good.

The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are held in tension here. Subsidiarity demands the parent and the child acknowledge the inequality of power, but solidarity demands they see that power imbalance through the lens of their equality of dignity as human beings. Inequality is just precisely because it demands more of those who have more. Everyone has equal rights by virtue of their equal dignity, but since there is a natural inequality of power, different people have different responsibilities.

A Bill of Responsibilities

It may be good for someone much smarter than me to write a Bill of Responsibilities to complement the Bill of Rights. I only ask that for the sake of sixth-grade civics teachers, you do not call it a Bill of “Duties.”

A bill of rights grants equal protection to all under the law, and other legislation gives special attention to protected classes. This is good, as it helps ensure equality of dignity. But we must demand more from those who have more. Justice is not complete when no one is censored or disarmed or forced to have soldiers live in their house. Justice is done when those who have power use that power for the benefit of those who have less or none.

Employers owe their employees more than simply the minimum wage, benefits, and “not discriminating against them.” Employers owe their employees formation in organizational health, industry knowledge, a path to greater success, etc. Parents owe their children more than “not neglect.” The higher classes owe us more than “paying their taxes” (which, be honest, does it happen?)

The problem is, as Dr. Jones points out, people without a certain good cannot demand the higher good on their own. A child cannot demand education in fortitude because she does not know what it is. To give a personal example, an eighth-grader cannot demand to be formed and prepared to receive Confirmation because they do not know what that entails. One of my teens put it well when I asked them if they had questions about Confirmation, “We don’t know what we don’t know!”

It is possible a juridical structure that instructs certain people with certain powers to use those powers for the good of those who do not possess them. This could be a Bill of Responsibilities, but I do not have anything to suggest beyond the concept itself. (Partially because I do not know what goods to demand from those with powers higher than mine!)

Practical Advice For Living A World of Inequality

Often, we accept a given ideology and try to conform reality to that ideology or at least see reality through that lens. It is important for a post-liberal ethic to do the opposite and provide a way to better conform our understanding with reality. I would like to suggest a few paradigm shifts you can make to better treat those less fortunate than you, and a few others to help recognize moments when people (particularly the pundits) are appealing to a false kind of equality.

First, we need to recognize that the things we should share our abundance with those less fortunate than us. This includes more than material goods (but it does include material goods.) If you have better education, moral formation, opportunities in life, etc. you need to share the fruits of those things with those who have not had them. Look for ways to share your gifts. It is also important to recognize that sharing out of your abundance like this is an act of justice, not charity. Charity is sharing out of your need. Sharing out of your abundance is not optional.

Second, we should recognize when “equality” is used as a rhetorical buzzword. Politicians often use “equality” as a buzzword to get us on board with their agendas.

Some use “equality” as an ideal future where everyone has an equal slice of the economic pie. This future is, forgive me, a pie-in-the-sky. Perfect equality in this way will never be achieved, and that is not a bad thing. Instead of focusing on this ideal future, we should socially and juridically recognize that those on the top of the social hierarchy are obligated to share the fruits of their success and raise the quality of life for the lower classes. This is not “trickle-down” economics, because it does not happen on its own. It needs to be intentional.

Others use the word “equality” as if it already exists and deny that any power imbalances exist whatsoever under the law. This, too, is false. Inequalities still exist and ought to be recognized. If they are not recognized, they go unexamined and we cannot determine if the inequality is just or not.

Of course, it is possible you have used the word “equality” to mean “equal in dignity” this whole time. If so, congratulations. However, for most of us, I think this concept may seem rather jarring. It is important to recognize that equality and justice are not synonymous. Just like treating people as if there is an inequality of dignity is unjust, it is also unjust to pretend there is perfect equality of power.

If you have thoughts on this, I want to hear them! Comment below or send me a message. If you liked what you read, share it with a friend! Sign up for my email list so you never miss an article.