Max Tallberg
In my previous blog post, I addressed the question of whether the current world can be considered just. I concluded negatively, regardless of whether we look at the situation of people in the global south or in developed industrial nations. In this text, I ponder what a just world could look like. I use as a starting point the perspectives and facts raised in my previous text, but I also consider the question from the viewpoints of various theories of justice and their traditions, which we have discussed in our blog and podcast.
The importance of justice in philosophy is evident from the countless perspectives presented on the subject. However, more important than theoretical and hypothetical contemplation is changing the actual world to be more just. Therefore, we must also examine what the world could look like in practice and how practical changes can be implemented – without forgetting the importance of theoretical reflection in assessing different political actions and proposing reforms. Theoretical reflection combined with practical solutions offers humanity the best opportunities for creating a just world.
Reflecting on justice and actions related to it initially involves a fundamental stance on the question of what each person deserves. Many might argue that everyone should get what they are entitled to through their actions. This would mean, for example, punishing harm to others or rewarding diligence. While this is intuitively just, reality is more complex. Echoing the societal perspective of my previous text, what each person deserves is a complex question involving many interacting factors and variables. An individual’s life is largely determined by their innate and inherited starting points, as well as their environment, society, social conditions, etc. It can also be generally said that actions harming others often (though not always) stem from previous mistreatment experienced by the individual. Similarly, an individual who feels their position in society is unjust may justify their immoral behavior. In other words, negative experiences can easily perpetuate and maintain an individual’s negative actions. These perspectives do not, of course, justify harming others. However, these observations emphasize that unjust, unequal, and immoral experiences and actions are a complex phenomenon that cannot be thought of unilaterally or explained and made more understandable unequivocally.
Thus, a just world would at least be one where factors leading to harmful behavior are directly addressed, and this complex connection is understood. However, people generally do not think this way. Psychology recognizes the so-called just-world fallacy, where people tend to think the world is fair, and therefore, people get what they deserve. Because people want to believe this, they also tend to explain and rationalize injustice in the world. Thus, victims are often wrongly blamed for their mistreatment. This also applies in the opposite direction: when someone experiences good fortune, people tend to think that the person has earned their luck through merit, even in cases where it was clearly just chance. Thus, external factors are often explained by internal qualities, such as intelligence, diligence, or their absence, even when this was not the case.
The just-world fallacy is explained by its distress-relieving effect. If one can believe the world is just, it is easier to deal with all the suffering in the current world. With this perspective, a person may also think that those who treat them poorly will eventually be punished. At the same time, this illusion can create meaning and a sense of control in life, as moral behavior is seen as rewarding and influential in one’s life course. This type of thinking is also present in many religions; perhaps this way of thinking corresponds to many fundamental questions of human life. However, it can also generate racist thinking or prejudice-based discrimination, referencing external attributes as justifiers of different event sequences. A prejudiced person might think, for example, that the poorer status of African Americans in the United States is due to their skin color. Such an attitude cannot justifiably be justified today.
It is clear, however, that the world does not actually operate as the just-world fallacy suggests. In contrast, the belief in a random or unjust world has been raised, where it is believed that there is no consistent relationship between a person’s actions and outcomes. In my previous text, I raised observations about the modern world that, in my opinion, support adopting this viewpoint. Instead of believing in a just world, humanity should acknowledge that there is still much injustice today and take on the task of collectively creating a fairer world.
What, then, could a just world look like? It is clear that such a world would have to fulfill many of the conditions I raised in my previous text. These include the realization of universal human rights at a global level, including meeting basic needs. A just world would also realize universal educational opportunities and healthcare in all countries. A just world would also be a meritocracy, where everyone is taken care of. Meritocracy – where individual achievements are decisive – includes the ideal of impartial equality, where external characteristics do not affect one’s life course. However, achievements alone should not determine what each individual deserves. Meritocracy has been criticized precisely because, in practice, people have unequal opportunities to achieve success, and for that reason, meritocracy alone is not the ultimate solution for organizing society. This is related to the view that people’s success is always explained by family and class background, as well as individual inherited or acquired characteristics. Therefore, society should also take care of those who cannot achieve a good life on their own.
The most direct way to build a just world is to ensure the right kind of meritocratic system, but above all, the realization of all the aforementioned rights everywhere in the world. However, the journey to such a world is long and requires that all the world’s states be put on the path of sustainable growth and development. A just world could also be described above all as one where everyone has equal, genuine, and free opportunities to pursue a good and valuable life. As we have already noted, there is no genuinely such situation in the modern world. Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen has argued that a huge amount of potential is wasted in the world when people in the global south do not have a genuine opportunity to improve their lives. Global inequality is not just about what people have or do not have; it is more about the actual opportunities people have to turn available resources into well-being.
A global basic income could be a means to solve this problem, as I have often previously presented. With it, an individual could have the opportunity to achieve real progress in their life, but it would also serve as a means to accelerate the internal development of each society. It would not be the only means to build a just world, but it could be crucial. I believe every person knows best how to improve their own life, at least when the question is considered from the level of practical needs. Basic income includes the personal freedom to use it in the desired way. This way, its positive personal impact would be maximal. Basic income should also be large enough in my model to allow a person to meet their basic needs; thus, many of the goals I previously raised could be achieved. Basic income would also provide the economic security that people in the global south most crave. At the same time, basic income would give everyone – including individuals in developed countries – a genuine opportunity to make their lives even better.
It can be argued that a person’s happiness increases the most when they achieve – or at least are able to strive towards – goals important to them. Basic income would enable this, as well as achieving new, later-arising goals. It could also be assumed to fulfill both perspectives on justice – individual and societal – that I raised in my previous blog post. Perhaps the best possible life for an individual consists of being both an individual and a part of a community. Basic income would also guarantee everyone a genuine opportunity for personal but also collective well-being, as, for example, the higher taxation required to enable basic income would also reduce inequality. At the same time, basic income could allow an individual more time to cherish their most important relationships, which are ultimately most central when considering what a happy life consists of. Basic income as a promoter of well-being would likely also lead to many individuals’ harmful life trajectories being interrupted. This way, it would address the factors that explain later harmful behavior and improve the state of society as a whole.
How does this model of a just world contained in basic income compare to thoughts on justice presented in the history of philosophy? In Plato’s dialogue The Republic (Book 4, 434d-435c), Socrates speaks of individuals having natural abilities and inclinations, which is why individuals fit into certain roles in society. Socrates suggests that the most just and efficient society would be one where each person stays in their societal role and position determined by their natural abilities. While this is a useful thought, such a society sounds to me more like a functioning society than a just one. For example, an individual with a large physical size and muscle mass could be said to be best suited for physical labor, even if that work was low-paying, unsatisfying, heavy, and even dangerous. An individual ending up in such a situation should, in my opinion, be entitled to some compensation. In addition, in a just society, each individual should have the genuine freedom to decide what kind of work they do, rather than intrinsically doing work where the individual is thought to be most productive due to their natural abilities. Basic income could solve both of these problems: firstly, it would improve the freedom to choose the desired work, and secondly, it would allow for equal support and compensation for everyone. Basic income could also be the most effective way to achieve eudaimonia, as discussed in both Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s texts. As discussed in related blog posts, eudaimonia is generally translated as happiness, but in the context of antiquity, the term should be understood more broadly as flourishing or doing well in life. Basic income would also provide an opportunity to consider what is important in one’s life and the freedom to create a life that looks like one’s own. At the same time, the economic security offered by basic income would allow for practical experimentation in this regard. Similarly, basic income could provide space to practice various virtues and related values in personal life. For all these reasons, basic income could also be seen as leading to a good society.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, proposes that the basis of morality should be enabling the greatest benefit or happiness. However, this involves many problems. Utilitarianism does not first and foremost respect individual rights but sees that they can be neglected when emphasizing the maximization of overall happiness. Utilitarianism also does not seem to take into account that maximizing happiness is rarely unambiguous. In many people’s lives, for example, great adversities have been able to grow and ultimately lead to something good, or at least valuable perspectives and understanding of life. Nietzsche’s famous thought that what does not kill, strengthens, could be added with the observation that what does not damage, strengthens. As long as adversities do not irreversibly change a person’s opportunities to live well, they can always later lead to greater well-being.
The problem with utilitarianism is that these outcomes cannot always be anticipated and therefore it is not known what action would even theoretically produce the most happiness in the present moment. However, looking at the modern world from a utilitarian perspective, it can be argued that happiness experienced throughout the world would increase the most when the basic needs of people in the global south are taken care of and each individual is given the opportunity to improve their life in the way they choose. Basic income would, as I have already presented, be a means to achieve this. It could also be seen as a response to the question posed by effective altruism on how the world can be improved most effectively. Basic income could also be seen as a means to guarantee all humans the various human capabilities highlighted by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. At the same time, basic income would create a just starting position regarding how the world is organized. This is also a question that has been pondered in philosophy in the context of distributive justice. Basic income would also fulfill the ideal of freedom emphasized in liberalism by emphasizing genuine freedom of choice. In addition, when a person gets to choose their work themselves, it can again be argued that they are also the most useful and productive in this work. In this respect, basic income could also be somewhat aligned with the economic efficiency emphasized in neoliberalism. Likewise, it could also make the individual freer in relation to society, for example, by removing incentive traps and reducing bureaucracy related to social security.
Looking at Karl Marx’s thinking, it can be argued that basic income would reduce the inequality analyzed and described by Marx and especially the causes leading to it. Part of Marx and Friedrich Engels’ developed historical materialism is the examination of the level of satisfaction of basic human needs such as food, drink, and shelter, and their distribution. According to Marx and Engels, they directly reflect the spiritual level of their society’s culture. In modern societies, a social security reform like basic income could be reasonably thought to secure people’s food, drink, and housing costs. Basic income would also raise the wages of low-paying and unpleasant jobs, as workers would have a stronger negotiating position with the security of basic income. In addition, Marx analyzed modern capitalism as a social system that creates and maintains a situation where phenomena such as rents, wages, capital, and other divisions of labor based on private ownership create alienated labor. This means that the worker and the individual selling their labor to production and the capitalist become alienated from their own creative ability to produce both mental and material goods. In addition, the class that owns the means of production exploits the economic added value produced by these goods. In a capitalist society, the worker does not encounter the result of their labor as their own creation but is alienated from it primarily as the property of another. Basic income could also reduce the alienation experienced by people when they can escape wage labor with the security it provides and choose their work themselves. Thus, people could seek work where they would encounter and experience the results of their own work again as their creations. Basic income would also free up time from traditional wage labor and offer people a better opportunity to nurture social relationships and greater community. In any case, people would also have a greater opportunity to influence what kind of life they want to pursue.
With these varying theories of justice, we recognize that people often have a strong sense of fairness, especially the ability to discern situations where this ideal is not met. However, more precise, concrete definition of justice is more challenging. Many opposing views can be raised, showing support from different groups. In my opinion, it is clear that a global basic income, as well as the realization of fundamental human rights and needs, should be part of a just world, regardless of whether it is viewed from a philosophical or real-world perspective. However, basic income also presents challenges. It would not be desirable if its demotivating effect were greater than its motivating impact. This could be addressed by setting basic income at a level that practically forces people to work to enjoy a comfortable, quality life. Another solution could be to make basic income conditional, requiring some form of socially beneficial active engagement. A good human life is active, and this should also be remembered in implementing basic income. In this context, we could start discussing a new attitude of constructive humanism: believing in people as fundamentally active agents who, given the opportunity, strive through their efforts for a better, more personal, and valuable life. Ensuring such an opportunity could bring the greatest collective benefit to societies. This way, even the already well-off could benefit from basic income without necessarily fearing significant deterioration in their status.
Global basic income and the free movement of people, previously advocated by our association, may be decisions that must be enforced in the future. Uncontrolled climate change and other environmental disasters will lead to crises where humanity faces a choice: whether to provide the conditions for a dignified life only to those who can afford it or to all of humanity. We may find ourselves choosing between a global catastrophic crisis following societal collapse or a new kind of global solidarity and well-being. Universal policies like global basic income and free movement – treating all people worldwide genuinely equally – might be necessary to ensure the well-being of all humanity. These would also be political actions leading to true, actual world citizenship for all. This is also a philosophical tradition of justice we have discussed in our blog and podcast.
Implementing universal political reforms would also require a new kind of moral thinking. It would firstly tolerate all people worldwide, regardless of differences and deviations. In such thinking, there is no room for prejudice, racism, discrimination, or any other inequality. It should also understand my initial point that harmful behavior often stems from being mistreated. A more empathetic worldview would thus change our attitude towards those who commit morally questionable acts. Many people, especially in liberal democracies, have already internalized these values or a similar worldview. Therefore, their spread in the future is not entirely impossible. They also align with the values upon which liberal democracies are theoretically built, as well as those highlighted in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Today, we see a global value struggle, mainly between tolerance and intolerance. This battle is also ongoing within many countries and societies. Another divide is in what information is trusted. Nowadays, decision-making should be increasingly guided by researched knowledge. Trusting such information could also enable the universal policies raised. Research shows, for instance, that immigration does not increase crime, human races do not exist biologically, genetic variation within societies is greater than between societies, class background affects life opportunities, and human-induced ecological crises will destroy life’s basic conditions.
So, what does the future of the world look like in terms of justice? Marx viewed history as a complex process of truth manifestation and reacted in his historical theory to the Hegelian idea of a rational world spirit (Weltgeist) guiding the world. While it’s reasonable today to question the existence of a rational entity guiding world history (referring, for example, to the two world wars of the last century or climate change), it’s justifiable to claim we now have better conditions than ever to make the world just. Humanity has more knowledge, skills, wealth, and ethical readiness to change the world than ever before. Striving for a more just world is entirely possible and should be humanity’s central goal. This pursuit never ends – not even if global basic income or free movement is achieved. Pursuing a better world is best advanced through collective discussion and decision-making based on researched knowledge. Different visions also play a crucial role in this process, to which this text can be counted. The next step is to implement these ideas in practice.
Sources:
Månson, Per (1993) Karl Marx. En introduktion. Bokförlaget Daidalos. Polex Int.[MT1]
Chouhy, C. & Madero-Hernandez, A. (2019) ‘Murderers, Rapists, and Bad Hombres’: Deconstructing the Immigration-Crime Myths. Victims & offenders. [Online] 14 (8), 1010–1039.
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “12 Theory of Justice & Plato”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/[MT2]
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “13 Aristotle’s theory of justice”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “14 Utilitarianism”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “15 Liberalism”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “17 Karl Marx’s theory of justice”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “18 Critical Theory”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “19 Cosmopolitanism”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
Lahtinen, Petri & Tallberg, Max. “21 On the concept of justice”. Visions of a better world. May 2023. https://www.globalvisions.fi/en/podcast/
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/eudaimonia
https://www.jaatistietopankki.fi/minua-kuullaan-reppu/hyva-elama/toimintamahdollisuudet/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-just-world-phenomenon-2795304
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/what-is-global-inequality/
