the idea of justice in political economy-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


and　conditions。
　　　　If　we　confine　ourselves　to　the　strictly　philosophical
reflections　of　ancient　and　modern　times；　there　scarcely　seems　to
be　any　controversy　about　the　question。　From　Aristotle's　doctrine
of　justice　in　distribution　to　the　philosophers　of　to…day；　there
is　controversy　over　the　practical　effect　of　the　judgments　in
question；　but　hardly　over　the　judgments　themselves。　Among　more
recent　thinkers　　only　to　mention　a　few　　Herbart　conceives　the
penal　system　and　the　economic　conditions　of　a　nation　as　a　united
whole；　what　elsewhere　is　called　justice　he　denominates　as　equity。
On　equity　his　so…called　system　of　wages；　which　comprises　the
economic　conditions　and　the　penal　law　of　a　nation；　is　built　up；
the　judgment　requires　recompense　for　benefits　and　retribution　for
misdeeds。　The　conceptions　of　the　wage　system　must；　according　to
Hartenstein；　be　applied　equally　to　benefits　and　misdeeds。　〃The
general　idea　must　be　maintained；　that　the　social　institutions　and
actions　should　be　capable　and　fitted　to　requite　equally　merit　and
offence。〃　And　Trendelenburg；　in　a　similar　fashion；　affirms　that
the　moral　estimation　of　political　and　economic　affairs　is；　at
bottom；　derived　from　the　same　standpoint。　〃Indeed；〃　he　says；　〃in
the　structure　of　the　State　the　constant　proportion　between　duties
and　rights　is　the　fundamental　idea　of　justice；　and　the　same
proportion　between　labor　and　earnings　should　be　aimed　at　in
private　intercourse；　but　the　market　price　makes　the　exponent　so
variable；　that　it　causes　a　constant　inequality。〃　The　execution
thus　seems　dim　to　him；　but　it　appears　to　him　the　ideal　condition；
that　labor　and　earnings　should　accord；　as　duty　does　with　right。
　　　　There　is　no　doubt　that　this　conception　is　confronted　by
another　which　results　from　the　investigation　of　details；　which　is
not　the　outgrowth　of　popular　instincts　and　sentiment；　and　is　even
often　involuntarily　denied　by　its　very　representatives；　but
through　the　authority　of　certain　doctrines　has　become
nevertheless　of　great　importance　for　practical　life。　I　mean　the
conception　which　sees　in　the　difference　between　rich　and　poor
only　an　occurrence　of　nature。　In　the　investigation　of　the
immediate　causes　of　the　distribution　of　wealth；　this　conception
is　not　able　to　discover　the　remoter　causes。　It　sees　only　demand
and　supply；　proportions；　natural　phenomena；　climatic　influences；
the　accidents　of　life　and　death；　all　these　are　unquestionably
mechanical　causes　which　influence　this　or　that　distribution　of
incomes。　The　earnings　of　the　individual；　it　is　said；　are
determined　by　the　〃strength　and　the　luck　of　the　individual。〃　
Free　intercourse　appears　as　the　analogy　of　the　Darwinian　struggle
for　existence。　Might　makes　right；　purposes　and　moral　judgments
are　not　here　in　consideration；　or　only　to　a　limited　extent。　So
far　as　mankind　demands　a　just　distribution　of　incomes；　their
ideas　ate　in　the　main　foolish；　justice　may　at　the　most　be
demanded　of　the　State　when　it　intervenes　directly；　opposed　as　it
is　to　free　intercourse　and　the　legitimate　influence　of　fortune；
this　striving　is　wrong。　〃Shall　we；〃　we　hear　from　this　quartet；
〃censure　our　God；　that　He　so　frequently　interferes　unjustly？
Shall　we　prescribe　to　Him　where　His　lightnings　shall　strike　and
where　He　shall　permit　the　bullets　to　hit？　Shall　we　quarrel　with
nature　because　she　grants　the　delicious　fruits　of　the　south　and
an　olympic　existence　to　one　race；　while　she　banishes　another　to
the　reeking　hovels　of　the　arctic？〃
　　　　We　will　not　dismiss　this　conception　of　things　by　the
accusation　of　materialism；　for；　though　materialistic；　it
nevertheless　has　the　merit　of　being　realistic　and　of　having
further　detailed　investigation　in　certain　directions。　But
whatever　its　merits　in　this　direction；　our　question　is　not　really
touched　at　all　by　these　arguments。　The　individual　scholar　who；　in
his　researches；　considers　only　forces；　proportions；　demand　and
supply；　and　endeavors　to　grasp　them；　may　ignore　the　question
whether　the　result　be　just；　but　the　popular　mind　will　always
repeat　the　question　as　long　as　it　sees　before　it　human　actions。
　　　　But　only　to　this　extent　and　always　to　this　extent；　and
furthermore　the　uncertain　results　of　fortune　and　the　course　of
natural　processes　also　will　appear　just　or　unjust　to　him　who
believes　that　they　are　governed　by　a　just　Providence　ruling
analogously　to　human　actions；　may　the　compensation　only　occur　in
another　world；　it　is　expected　and　demanded　by　the　soul。
　　　　When　on　the　other　hand　the　intellect　sees　but　blind　forces；
it　consoles　itself　with　the　argument　that　it　is　not　the　task　of
humanity　to　master　them；　then　he　will　no　longer　demand　justice
from　the　flashing　lightning；　from　the　hostile　bullet　from　the
demon　of　cholera　and　the　sunny　zephyrs；　but　always　from　all
conscious　actions　of　human　beings。
　　　　The　distinction　is　therefore　not；　as　has　been　claimed；
between　State　and　chance；　State　and　free　intercourse；
governmental　distribution　and　distribution　by　demand　and　supply；
but　the　antithesis　is　this：　As　far　as　human　action　governs　and
influences　the　distribution　of　incomes；　so　far　this　action　will
create　the　psychological　processes　whose　final　result　is　the
judgment　which　finds　the　distribution　just　or　unjust；　so　far　as
blind　extra…human　causes　interfere；　reasonable　reflection　will
demand　that　men　should　submit　to　them　with　resignation。
　　　　If　it　is　objected　that　demand　and　supply　distribute　incomes；
we　reply　in　the　first　instance：　Are　demand　and　supply　blind
powers　independent　of　human　influence？　This　year's　crops　depend
on　rain　and　sunshine；　but　the　average　results　of　our　crops　are　a
product　of　our　cultivation。　Demand　and　supply　are　summary　terms
for　the　magnitudes　of　opposing　groups　of　human　wills。　The　causes
and　conditions　of　these　magnitudes　are　partly　natural；　mostly
however；　human　relations　and　powers；　human　deliberations　and
actions。
　　　　If　it　is　objected　that　nature　conditions　the　wealth　of　a
nation；　we　answer：　She　certainly　does　in　part；　and　as　far　as　she
does；　no　one　thinks　it　unjust　that　one　nation　is　rich　and　the
other　poor。　But　when　one　nation　enslaves；　plunders　and　keeps　in
subjection　another；　we　immediately　find　the　wealth　of　the　former
and　the　poverty　of　the　latter　unjust。
　　　　If　it　is　objected　that　the　one　man　is　wealthier　than　the
other　because　he　was　not　compelled　to　divide　his　inheritance　with
brother　and　sister；　that　the　one　has　the　good　fortune　to　possess
a　healthy　wife；　the　other　not；　we　answer：　No　normal　feeling　of
right　wishes　to　do　away　with　such　chance　of　fortune。　But　the
question　is；　if　such　effects　of　nature；　not　subject　to　our
influence；　which　we　call　fortune　or　chance；　are　indeed　the
essential　causes　of　the　distribution　of　incomes　and　wealth。　In
such　a　case　there　could　be　no　science　of　political　economy　or
social　policy；　for　the　irregular　game　of　chance　cannot　be　brought
under　general　points　of　view。
　　　　If　it　is　objected　that　labor　and　not　the　State　distributes
incomes；　we　answer　that　this　is　a　surprising　objection　in　the
mouth　of　one　who　declares　strength　and　fortune　both　at　the　same
time　to　be　the　causes　of　distribution。　For　the　objection　has
meaning　only　when　it　signifies　that　different　labor　and　different
accomplishments　produce　correspondingly　different　compensation。
In　our　eyes；　labor　produces　goods；　builds　houses；　bakes　bread；
but　it　does　not　directly　distribute　incomes。　The　different　kinds
of　labor　will　affect　distribution　only　by　their　different
valuations　in　society。　The　demand　for　this　or　that　labor　will
influence　its　market　price；　but　the　moral　valuation　of　this　or
that　labor　will　influence　the　judgment　whether　this　price　is
just。　Thus　labor　influences；　indirectly　it　is　true；　the
distribution　of　incomes；　but　in　such　a　case；　and　so　far　as　it
does　so；　it　excludes　the　notion　of　luck　or　chance。
　　　　Both　assertions；　however；　confine　themselves　too　closely　to
the　individual　distribution　of　incomes；　whereas　for　the　economist
the　essential　point　is　the　distribution　among　the　classes　of
society。　For　every　more　general　scientific　or　practical　inquiry
it　is　not　the　important　point　whether　Tom；　the　day　laborer；　has
more　than　Dick　or　Harry；　whether　the　grocer；　Jones；　earns　more
than