Paul Woodruff's idea of justice

 I’ve been thinking about the notion of justice outlined by Paul Woodruff in The Ajax Dilemma. At least one friend is interested in a conversation about it. So I thought I’d give an account of it, in case others want to join in.

Professor Woodruff says we confuse justice with fairness. Fairness is based on rules and principles and is measurable. Justice, a broader concept, is not.

A classic case of fairness is equal pay for equal work. The pay is either measurably fair or it isn’t. The problem is that the concept of fairness gets fuzzy at the edges, when we try to decide what’s fair pay for unequal work (the work of a doctor, a nurse, a records technician and janitor in a clinic, for example). All the work is necessary, but the achievements are different, and the rewards should be too.

Woodruff says justice is giving everyone in a community her due. A community is a circle of respect. So it’s essential to honor (i.e. give respect to) each member for his contribution. But since each contribution is different, what’s just can’t be derived by rules.

Justice depends on leadership — a kind of wisdom among all members of the community, those at the bottom as well as those in authority. Leadership recognizes the unlike contributions that each individual makes and honors them.

The whole thing goes awry when people don’t feel they are being respected or honored. When we are dishonored, we feel excluded from the community. We usually react badly.

In Woodruff’s account, good leaders are the same as good followers. Good leaders don’t really care if they are in charge. They are seeking the common good — the best for the community, not what’s best for themselves. What they really care about is an environment in which everyone can flourish.

Justice is the social glue that keeps a community together when there is a dispute. It builds a sense of trust. It’s never perfect, but in a just community almost everyone is looking out for the common good. There’s a sense that everyone is going to get his due. People are going to be respected and honored for what they do, even though everyone’s contribution is a bit different. 

In an unjust society, everyone is out for himself. Instead of an atmosphere of trust, we have an atmosphere of suspicion. Conspiracy theories abound. Those in authority are not leaders. They are not concerned about the common good. They’re just in it for themselves.

I should have said this an account of my understanding of Professor Woodruff’s idea. My understanding is evolving. The best advice is to read the book, which is excellent. 

In the meantime, I’m curious about how this hits you. Is this what you mean when you’re talking about justice?

• Source: Paul Woodruff, The Ajax Dilemma: Justice, Fairness and Rewards; Oxford University Press, 2011. For other notes on the book, see July 22 and July 24, 2022.