On Injustice: Its Origins, Development, and Contemporary Manifestations

Social Philosophy
1

This is the first topic in the series of examples I promised to illustrate how the principle of self-interest operates in public life.

The topic of injustice has troubled and outraged me, I think, just like many other people, ever since childhood. Where does it come from, and why is there so much of it? Is it really possible that people—intelligent people, each of whom wants justice for themselves and others—cannot organize life in society according to the laws of justice and make these laws permanently and invariably effective for all time?

So, as I often pondered this, I gradually began to notice that in the struggle between justice and injustice, in almost every situation, the latter proves to be stronger and more resilient. Perhaps that is why people fail to build a just society? Why and how does this happen?

At first, it seemed to me that the reason for this was some negative traits in people’s characters.

But over time, my observations of the behavior of many people and social processes gradually led me to the conclusion that this trait is a certain general, fundamental pattern in the lives of most people, which determines the motivation behind their behavior, both in everyday and in social life. It manifests itself as the prioritization of personal interests over the interests of others: another person, a group, or society.

Could this be one of the causes of injustice?

I have expressed this pattern with the following formula:

“Most people, in most situations, are guided by personal interest and personal gain.”

Since then, through hundreds of examples and situations—both minor and significant, right up to the realm of high politics—I have become convinced of the consistent, unwavering operation of this pattern. It seems to me that this pattern is so enduring and manifests itself in so many social processes that it meets the criteria and is entitled to claim the status of an empirical philosophical law of human existence. I have named it the “law (pattern) of personal interest” (abbreviated as LPI).

The aim of this article is to attempt to trace the sources of the formation, development, and existence of injustice in light of the manifestation of this very law.

Perhaps the most significant role in the phenomenon of injustice is played by such a trait of human character as selfishness. Which is, unfortunately, part of personal interest

Therefore, before proceeding further, a brief discussion of the types of selfishness is in order. There are now quite a few of them, and numerous works have been written on this topic. But long before I learned of the existence of such works, I attempted, for my own sake and for the sake of simplicity of understanding, to consider the definition of types of selfishness in the following two situations.

.Situation One.

In all situations, a person seeks first and foremost to satisfy their own personal interests, disregarding the interests of other people or society, acting in their own favor even at the expense of others. I call this type of selfishness aggressive selfishness.

Situation Two.

Although a person seeks first and foremost to satisfy their own interests, they are willing, in situations where their interests intersect with those of others, to take those interests into account within reasonable (in their opinion) limits: to seek compromises, and sometimes even to sacrifice their own interests (whether for humanitarian reasons or to avoid conflict). I call this type reasonable egoism.

Wikipedia defines egoism as follows:

Egoism (from Latin “ego” — I) — a value orientation of the personality toward the dominance in one’s individual consciousness, behavior, and activities of one’s own value above all else, the prioritization of one’s own interests over the interests of others, a consumerist attitude toward those around them, the exploitation of others for one’s own selfish purposes, and indifference and contempt for their opinions.

This formulation reflects my version of aggressive egoism, but is more complete and precise.

Now let’s return directly to the topic of injustice. How does injustice arise among people?

The law of self-interest speaks to the priority of personal interests in human behavior. In any collective or community, large or small, people’s interests always intersect to some degree, often coming into conflict with one another, which frequently leads to conflict and strife.

I will examine two main levels of injustice—the individual and the societal levels.

On an individual level, it looks like this :

People, as we know, are all different: some are stronger, some are weaker; some are more cunning, some are more honest; some are more aggressive, some are more peace-loving; some are smarter, and some are less so. But they all have their own personal interests. When these interests clash, then, based on the law mentioned above, each of them would like, first and foremost, to defend their own personal interests. As a result, a struggle arises.

In such a struggle, the stronger, more aggressive, more cunning, and smarter person usually wins. This gives rise to injustice in its various forms: insult, deception, violence, humiliation, mockery, oppression, beatings, and in extreme cases—seizing another’s property by force or the threat of force, theft, robbery, and even murder. And all of this is precisely a manifestation of aggressive selfishness.

Of course, there are also altruists who, in such situations, as a rule, sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of others. But, first of all, they are in the minority. And, secondly, in such a struggle, they will most likely lose. -

This does not mean that any person’s presence in a human community inevitably leads to a clash of interests, let alone a conflict of interests. Being in a friendly atmosphere of mutual respect brings a person emotional satisfaction and is also one of their inherent personal interests. But this, in turn, by no means excludes the conflict situations described above.

Why is there still so much injustice? Precisely because aggressive egoists make up, though not the majority, still a significant portion of the population. And then there are the intelligent egoists who, although unwilling to compromise, will also fight for what is theirs, and this too can often lead to injustice.

At the societal level, the root cause of injustice is essentially the same selfishness in the struggle for personal interests. But here it manifests itself on a much broader scale. I became interested in when and how it arose, how it developed historically, what it looks like today, and how to minimize its manifestations in society.

To trace the most ancient, primordial sources of injustice, let us begin by examining this issue from a historical perspective. And there, from the very dawn of humanity, from the days of the primitive communal system, there have always been the strong and the weak, the more and less aggressive, and the more and less intelligent.

And so this means that the stronger, more cunning, and more aggressive individual will attempt, to satisfy his personal interests, to drive the weaker one from the richer territories, to seize the weaker one’s property, or to take him and his family captive, not even stopping at murder. This is the very beginning of injustice. Next, he does this to one weaker individual, then a second, then a third. As a result, the captives become his slaves and are forced to work for him, increasing his wealth and, thereby, his power. From among the captives, he creates his own warriors and becomes their leader. With their help, the strong could capture even more captives and slaves, conquer entire tribes and territories, subjugate the populations of these territories, and continue to enrich themselves, which made them even stronger. Wealth and power gave them the ability to maintain an entire army. Thus, the strong became leaders, rulers, and conquerors. Later, the wealthy became nobles, princes, and kings. In this way, the strong and the wealthy gained the ability and the right to subjugate the populations of conquered territories and even entire states and peoples. And, as a result, to treat them as they pleased. And they acted, in most cases, guided not so much by social interests as by their own personal interests, for their own personal gain, to the detriment of the interests of their neighbors as well as their subordinates

It should also be noted that large numbers of people took part in such fierce battles and wars: whether they were professional soldiers or ordinary people who had been mobilized. Was this in their personal interest? For warriors, it was first and foremost their duty—one they had chosen either of their own free will and desire for a higher status in society, or out of a natural, animalistic urge to fight; and also—the opportunity to profit from the spoils of war. For the conscripted, the personal interest lies in avoiding punishment—one way or another—should they refuse to go to war. And some of them are also not averse to taking advantage of the spoils.
Within the state, a situation gradually developed historically in which one or several wealthy rulers already possessed a large number of subordinates. And kings and tsars—entire nations that were in a state of oppression.
Thus, individual injustice had already grown into social injustice. And the cause remains the same—selfishness, as part of personal interest.
Naturally, the oppressed majority sought to change this situation. At first, these were isolated acts of resistance, but gradually people began to unite to defend their common interests. This is how uprisings and social movements of varying sizes arose, aimed at establishing a more just order.
Sometimes such movements prevailed and gained the opportunity to build new, more just social orders.
And although the rulers of the new, just state proclaimed and even sometimes tried to uphold justice, they often could not overcome that same natural selfishness within themselves and, sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, turned to the same path of coercion and violence to maintain, first and foremost, their personal power (though often—and social order as well).
Once again, it seems that everything is returning “to its old ways.”
But these are no longer the same “old ways .”

The people, having realized their power and understood the reasons behind this process, strive from the very beginning to establish laws and institutions that would guarantee the protection of their personal interests against those of the “ruling class.” They also seek to ensure that equal human rights are protected at the individual level.
Thus, democracy, parliaments, elections, and re-elections emerge. The people are gradually granted access to power and begin to participate in the governance of the state. They enshrine their personal interests—those of the weaker members of society—in written laws and rules of conduct.
A clear understanding emerges that in order to prevent those in power, who have greater opportunities, from using them for personal gain contrary to the interests of others and the majority, it is necessary to create supervisory bodies and law enforcement agencies: governments, police, and courts. But they must be accountable to the majority—that is, the people—represented, for example, by popularly elected parliaments.
Thus, history shows that the struggle between justice and injustice is not a one-time event. It is constantly renewed.
In my opinion, it is hardly possible to completely eliminate injustice. As long as a person remains human, their personal—and above all, selfish—interests will inevitably influence their behavior.
However, this does not mean that the struggle for justice is futile. History shows that societies can gradually create rules, laws, and institutions that limit manifestations of aggressive selfishness and compel people to align their interests with those of others.
Education, culture, and often religion also contribute significantly to this.
But for millennia, it has not been possible to force a person to give up the priority of their personal interes ts.

Therefore, I see the path to a more just society not in attempting to change human nature so that people always prioritize the interests of society or others over their own personal interests, but first and foremost in creating social mechanisms that make cooperation advantageous and the abuse of power, force, or wealth disadvantageous.
Perhaps justice is not a state that can be achieved once and for all, but a continuous process of maintaining a balance of interests between people, social groups, and the government?
What do you think, frie nds?

2

hmm. I wonder which particular culture or society you have in mind, here? I write from Australia, land of the ‘fair go’. In my earlier career (now retired) one of the managers I reported to, was originally from South Africa, but was very much a citizen of the world, was a native French speaker who had lived in Paris and New York. He lived in Australia at that time because, he said, it was far less stratified by class or money than the other places he’d lived. He really took seriously the Australian idea of the ‘fair go’, which is that anyone should be able to get along or get ahead regardless of their social status and background. (He’s subsequently moved back to the USA for career reasons. And also it should be noted that the prohibitive cost of housing in Australia is very much undermining the traditionalist ethos of the fair go.)

But from my perspective I would find it hard to agree that ‘injustice always wins out over justice’ or that ‘the majority of people act selfishly in their own interests.’ Those tendencies exist, to be sure, and there will always be plentiful examples of both selfish behaviour and miscarriages of justice - people wrongly convicted and so on. I don’t share your sense of pessimism overall, but then, I don’t know what your circumstances are. Although the current political climate in America certainly seems to reward injustice, what with the President’s attempt to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to pardoned felons who had sacked the Capital.

Right! An estimable aim, and surely a worthy topic for political philosophy. So which of existing current or historial cultures do you think could be looked at as an example of this kind of ethos?

3

Alturistic groups are arguably more successful than groups dominated by selfish members. But within an alturistic group, selfish members are arguably more successful than alturistic members.

For example, a soccer team of good team players beats a team of good individualistic players, because the latter are too specialised. But once an individualistic player is supported by team players, then s/he is more successful than the team players. Hence “star player”.

These are conditions under which groups and individuals achieve success. You can add regulatory systems and find an acceptable balance between success and justice.

For example, a legal system according to which it’s not acceptable to achieve success as a tax dodger, robber, or fraudster. Most if not all modern societies have such regulations, but sometimes they are corrupted and attacked by special interests.

4

A vote is not so much an “access to power” as it is a granting of power. One can say this because at no moment does the act of voting endow the voter with any of the powers involved in the governance of the state. Besides, how can a politician represent anyone but himself? That’s why the whole notion of representative government is an ancient sham. The Republic is not, in fact, “a thing that belongs to the people”.

Rather, it is the opposite: one signs on the dotted line, so to speak, effectively signing over his rights and property to other human beings, to politicians and bureaucrats, who are merely jobholders at best, tyrants at worst. And in doing so the voter is helping to elect the class that will operate a vast institution of exploitation—exploitation in the proper sense of the term. No justice can ever be found when such relationships between human beings exist.

5

@MadLad “You criticize the republic as something that does not belong to the people. In my post, I said that after a thousand-year struggle, the people of certain states, having achieved a republican system in their countries and using a representative mechanism of government, begin to translate their interests into state laws and oversee their enforcement.
You claim that this is a deception, that “the act of voting in no way grants the voter any powers related to governing the state. Moreover, how can a politician represent anyone other than themselves? Someone signs, so to speak, a dotted line, effectively transferring their rights and property to other people, politicians, and bureaucrats, who at best are merely employees, and at worst—tyrants.”
I admit that what you say may well be true.
But at the same time, I maintain that this is not entirely true.
A politician who, during his term in office, represents only himself, disregarding the interests of his constituents—all based on the same principle of self-interest in being re-elected for another term—will be forced to take his constituents’ interests into account. Is that not so?
This is exactly what I’m saying in my post: when a political system creates mechanisms that make it unprofitable for those in power to act solely in their own personal interests, they are for their own benefit (to remain in power), are forced to a large extent to act in the interests of the people who elected them.
But surely you wouldn’t claim that in slave-owning, feudal societies the people had greater influence over the government than in modern civilized republics with developed democracies? So isn’t this already progress toward greater justice?
The fact that what you described is possible even in a republic precisely confirms my answer to the question: why is there so much injustice? It is simply because there are still many aggressive (and not only) egoists.
You go on to say: “No justice can ever be found when such relationships between people exist.”
Again, I maintain almost the same point there: as long as the law of self-interest prevails, absolute justice cannot be achieved. But I would remove the word “no” from your phrase. As for the word “never,” I’m afraid we’ll only be able to remove it in paradise.

In the “Political Philosophy” category, I took part in a debate on communism, where I argued that Soviet socialism of the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist variety, precisely because of its vision of building a communist society, and It endorsed your view that “justice can never be achieved when such relations exist between people.” Therefore, one of the three main slogans of building communism was the task of “raising a new person” who would always and everywhere place the interests of society above their personal interests. But 70 years proved insufficient to achieve this goal. (Even two thousand years of Christianity have not entirely succeeded in this.) And I would argue that this is primarily because those ideologues failed to take into account the selfish component of human nature.

6

Not really in the long run because in order to win, they must expose themselves too. It takes a lot of work to get what they want and in the course of their chase a lot of people who are altruists and ethical would notice. The aggressive ones become easy targets.

7

@Wayfarer

“So which existing modern or historical cultures would you point to as an example of such an ethos?”

I do not claim that there is, or ever has been, a society that has completely overcome injustice.

Moreover, I believe that as long as natural human egoism exists as part of personal interest, you will not find such a state. I admit that there may exist limited communities of people united by certain strict ethical or religious principles. But not on the scale of a state.

Although, wait a moment, I think I can see one such society.

It is -PARADISE

Where everything necessary for every person will exist, where the grounds for conflict situations will disappear, where Christ’s principle of everyone loving everyone will finally prevail; where people’s own non-material interests will be satisfied through friendly and benevolent communication. But this will happen for only one reason: egoists will not be admitted there. They will end up in a completely different community.

As for Australia, I would be interested to hear from you some specific examples of how the principles of justice are implemented there in practice.

The criteria you cited — that “everyone should have the opportunity to get along or succeed regardless of their social status and background” — by which your citizen of the world chose Australia, seem insufficient. Such principles are contained in the constitutions of probably all civilized countries in the world.

By the way, this citizen chose both Australia and later the United States purely on the basis of the Law of Personal Interest. There is personal interest here, but there is no egoism.

Next:

“But from my point of view, I find it difficult to agree that ‘injustice always defeats justice’ or that ‘most people act selfishly in their own interests.’”

The words highlighted in your quotations are not present in my formula. Instead of “always,” my formula contains the words “in most situations.” And instead of the word “selfishly,” it simply says “personal interests.” (It is possible that in the latter case this substitution sometimes occurs because of an inaccurate translation.)

“I do not share your pessimism in general, but I do not know what your circumstances are.”

First, what you describe as my pessimism, I regard as realism. Although I sometimes add “unfortunately.”

I am not familiar with your example concerning the president’s attempt, but if that attempt failed, then perhaps it was thanks to your not entirely bad legal system.

As for my circumstances, my concept concerning the causes of injustice does not depend on them at all. I consider it to be universal.

1 Like
8 
@jkop “For example, a soccer team made up of good team players beats a team of good individualists because the latter are too specialized.
But as soon as an individualist is supported by team players, he or she becomes more successful than the team players themselves. Hence the term “star player.” 
Your examples have presented me with a difficult challenge. But since they relate to my post about self-interest, I’ll try to untangle this situation from the perspective of prioritizing self-interest.
1. I maintain that my formula applies to most diverse life situations involving ordinary people. But as I’ve already mentioned in my previous posts, there are groups or communities where people gather and are selected based on specific criteria to achieve certain goals and tasks. These communities are typically limited in size. In such groups, people are united by common interests aimed at accomplishing the tasks for which these groups were created. And here, the personal interests of each member are fully aligned with one another. Otherwise, anyone who places their own specific interests above those of the community will be removed from the team.
Your example with the soccer team, in my view, perfectly fits the situation I’ve described. (Although I wouldn’t call this team altruistic, either in relation to other teams or in terms of internal team dynamics.)
 In your example, the person you call an “individualist” likely stands out for his exceptional technical, physical, and other soccer skills—like Messi or Ronaldo, for instance. And, of course, the rest of the players try to support him. This isn’t altruism, because it fully aligns with the team’s collective interest. However, if this leader begins to prioritize his own interests—such as personal glory, showing off special skills, or taking over most of the play—above the team’s collective goals, to the detriment of the team, then what I described above will happen. And that is precisely when the “regulatory systems” you mentioned will come into play.
2. That other team of “good individualists,” in your situation, will lose because every player—or at least the majority of them—will be unable to subordinate their own interests to the team’s overall goals. I once wrote that understanding my “law of personal interest” helps predict how situations will unfold within a team. And a good team manager (coach) must always keep in mind that every player has their own ambitions, which can be detrimental to the team if the coach fails to find—again, as you mentioned—the necessary “regulatory” mechanisms.
 
But in both the first and second situations—as is always the case in sports, and perhaps in few other areas—every athlete inevitably tries first and foremost to satisfy their personal interests and outperform their teammates, because that is the main goal of any competition. And altruism is not a quality that fits here.
Furthermore
 “For example, a legal system under which it is unacceptable to achieve success by evading taxes, or by being a robber or a fraudster.
 Most, if not all, modern societies have such rules,”
I agree with you, but you write that “SOMETIMES they are corrupt and subject to special interests” .” I, however, maintain that they are ALWAYS under attack from personal interests as well as from corruption.
As always, this comment turned out to be long, but the question wasn’t a simple one to address specifically through the lens of the inevitability of self-interest.
9

@jkop “For example, a soccer team made up of good team players beats a team of good individualists because the latter are too specialized.
But as soon as an individualist is supported by team players, he or she becomes more successful than the team players themselves. Hence the term “star player.”
Your examples have presented me with a difficult challenge. But since they relate to my post about self-interest, I’ll try to untangle this situation from the perspective of prioritizing self-interest.

  1. I maintain that my formula applies to most diverse life situations involving ordinary people. But as I’ve already mentioned in my previous posts, there are groups or communities where people gather and are selected based on specific criteria to achieve certain goals and tasks. These communities are typically limited in size. In such groups, people are united by common interests aimed at accomplishing the tasks for which these groups were created. And here, the personal interests of each member are fully aligned with one another. Otherwise, anyone who places their own specific interests above those of the community will be removed from the team.
    Your example with the soccer team, in my view, perfectly fits the situation I’ve described. (Although I wouldn’t call this team altruistic, either in relation to other teams or in terms of internal team dynamics.)
    In your example, the person you call an “individualist” likely stands out for his exceptional technical, physical, and other soccer skills—like Messi or Ronaldo, for instance. And, of course, the rest of the players try to support him. This isn’t altruism, because it fully aligns with the team’s collective interest. However, if this leader begins to prioritize his own interests—such as personal glory, showing off special skills, or taking over most of the play—above the team’s collective goals, to the detriment of the team, then what I described above will happen. And that is precisely when the “regulatory systems” you mentioned will come into play.
  2. That other team of “good individualists,” in your situation, will lose because every player—or at least the majority of them—will be unable to subordinate their own interests to the team’s overall goals. I once wrote that understanding my “law of personal interest” helps predict how situations will unfold within a team. And a good team manager (coach) must always keep in mind that every player has their own ambitions, which can be detrimental to the team if the coach fails to find—again, as you mentioned—the necessary “regulatory” mechanisms.

But in both the first and second situations—as is always the case in sports, and perhaps in few other areas—every athlete inevitably tries first and foremost to satisfy their personal interests and outperform their teammates, because that is the main goal of any competition. And altruism is not a quality that fits here.
Furthermore
“For example, a legal system under which it is unacceptable to achieve success by evading taxes, or by being a robber or a fraudster.
Most, if not all, modern societies have such rules,”
I agree with you, but you write that “SOMETIMES they are corrupt and subject to special interests” .” I, however, maintain that they are ALWAYS under attack from personal interests as well as from corruption.
As always, this comment turned out to be long, but the question wasn’t a simple one to address specifically through the lens of the inevitability of self-interest.