Social inequality in the context of natural justice

Ismailov Nurmagomed ORCID: 0000-0003-4935-4902 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 125167, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky Prospekt str., 49/2, office 0617 NOIsmailov@fa.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

This article is a supplement and development of certain provisions and ideas set out by us in previous works ^{[4, 5, 6]}. The study of the problem of social justice is mutually conditioned with the study of the problem of social equality. The disclosure of the essence and content of justice necessarily involves the analysis of the concept of equality. Issues of justice and injustice are initially presented in inseparable unity with issues of equality and inequality. This follows from the very definition of justice, according to which justice is a correspondence (that is, equality) between an act and retribution, labor and reward, crime and punishment, freedom and responsibility.

Before investigating the problem we have identified, I think it is necessary to reveal the concept of natural justice. For a high probability of rejection of this concept by representatives of philosophy and social sciences is not excluded, since the concept of justice characterizes and evaluates social phenomena, this concept does not apply to any natural phenomena ^{[4, p. 91]}. And this gives reason to believe that justice by definition is social and one can be skeptical about the use of the concept of natural justice. However, in philosophy at all times there have been different points of view on this issue. Some researchers point to the fact of actualization in modern public thought of the idea of "the natural potential of man, which pushes for the reappearance of human nature and natural rights in the concepts of justice" ^{[14, p. 25]}. We stand in solidarity with those researchers who believe that social relations and various legal and moral norms adopted in a certain society should not contradict human nature, whose laws cannot be abolished. And this problem has remained relevant since ancient times ^[13].

Exploring the philosophical problems of law, Hegel notes the different nature of the laws of nature and the laws of law, emphasizing the absolute nature of the laws of nature, which, as he believes, cannot be abolished. It indicates the probability of erroneous views of people on this issue. The laws of law established in this society are based on the interpretation of the justice of the authors of these laws themselves. For this reason, these laws do not always correspond to genuine justice. He proposed to explore nature, considering it as a model for creating norms of law ^{[3, p. 57]}.

It seems that there are grounds to assert that nature should figure as the most important component in the concept of justice, if only because the physical and spiritual inclinations of different people are initially conditioned by it. It seems that even opponents of the concept of natural justice cannot deny such conditionality of various inclinations in people. And, consequently, the personal potential of a person, determined by the natural component, makes significant adjustments to the processes of his further education, training, work, and personal development processes. And if there are conditions in a given society to identify the available inclinations, if there are conditions for personal development, more hardworking and "naturally gifted individuals can gain superiority over others. And this kind of superiority under these conditions does not contradict justice" ^{[4, 91]}.

Trying to prevent possible criticism from defenders of individuals less talented by nature, we note that the above is not an unconditional statement about the inability of the latter to achieve a high level of personal development. There can be no doubt about the ability of many people to bring great, sometimes colossal benefits to society. The factors of having such abilities in them, including those less gifted by nature, can be upbringing, training, hard work, purposefulness.

Experts note that in the conditions of a purposeful process of education and training, even individuals with significant health problems, trying to realize their personal potential, are often able to achieve great success in terms of personal development, carry out important social activities in conditions when appropriate work is carried out with them from an early age ^{[7, 8]}.

Research methodology.

As a methodological basis for the study of the problem of social inequality identified by us in the context of the concept of natural justice, we use the principle of development. According to this principle of dialectics, any phenomenon should be investigated in formation, change and development. We also use an axiological approach in this work, revealing the attitude of people to various issues of public life that require consideration from the point of view of the categories of justice and equality in the context of the values prevailing in this society. When evaluating any phenomena of public life, it is necessary to use the criterion of practice, that is, to take into account how much the legal and moral norms of a given society, the policy pursued in this society, and other measures in real practice allow it to function more successfully and achieve a higher level of social progress.

One of the main provisions of our work is the provision on the need for equal opportunities for citizens representing this particular society. Also, we do not consider ourselves among those researchers who consider formal equality before the law to be the main guarantor of justice, which, as we are sure, of course, is a necessary step towards genuine justice. As the main guarantor of social justice, we see the actual equality of all members of this society before the law. At the same time, the implementation of the principle of social justice in a certain society is interpreted by us as a prerequisite for ensuring social equality. We also stand in solidarity with those researchers who see special conditions for the realization of social justice in ensuring equality in relations between generations, in ensuring decent living conditions for future generations. This problem has become more and more urgent in recent years ^{[15, 16]}.

We believe that "the main form of fair differentiation of the standard of living of individuals and social groups in any society should be differentiation due to the principle of distribution according to merit" ^{[6, pp. 95-96]}. However, this form of distribution should be the main one, but not the only one. This form of differentiation of individuals was unacceptable, for example, in a primitive communal society, where strict equality in obtaining life benefits for all members of the tribe was a requirement of severe necessity, a means of survival of the tribe. But truth and morality, as dialectics teaches, are of a concrete historical nature, and in modern society, the main criterion for the fair differentiation of members of society should be work, the individual's personal merits to society.

According to our beliefs, each person has a certain limit to the level of personal development, the limit of abilities due to his natural inclinations. This natural potential in terms of physical, intellectual and artistic abilities cannot be the same for people. Of course, the reason for the different level of individual abilities, in addition to natural inclinations, may be other factors. Such important factors in the formation of personal qualities of a person include upbringing, education, financial capabilities of a particular family, increased responsible attitude of an employee to his professional duties, diligence, etc. Exploring the process of realizing personal potential and the development of personal qualities of a person, it is necessary to take into account all factors contributing to this process. And they collectively create the possibility of the formation of social inequality in this society, which, presumably, does not contradict justice in all cases. "Irremediable differences in the physical and spiritual inclinations of individuals, differences due to the results of the activities of individuals with unequal natural inclinations, unequal level of skill, diligence, ability to improvise, we call "just inequality" ^{[6, p. 96]}.

According to our views, justice is equality for equals and inequality for the unequal. And this provision is fundamental in our understanding of justice. Justice is equality for individuals equal in terms of personal qualities and actual merits to a given society. This category also expresses inequality towards individuals unequal in relation to the above conditions. It is the category of social justice that acts as a measure of social equality and social inequality. At the same time, we can agree with researchers who consider the economic aspect of the problem of social equality and social inequality as the most important. Of course, this does not diminish the importance of other aspects of the problem ^{[1, 2]}.

The results of the study.

The use of the concept of natural justice in the social sciences, as it seems to us, is permissible and legitimate if we mean by this concept the natural right of a person to receive any benefits in his life due to those characteristics that he possesses due to natural inclinations. He has the right to life, liberty and property, even if it would be contrary to the laws of the country of which he is a citizen. This right is granted to him by nature. However, it should be emphasized here that other members of society have the same rights, and he is not allowed to violate these rights. Otherwise, man himself would have already begun to violate natural justice. The use of the concept of natural justice in any other meaning in the characterization of social phenomena seems unlawful. However, it should be emphasized that the use of this concept is conditional. And this topic requires further in-depth research. For "in essence, justice as such is in any case social, since it is ultimately conditioned by social life and characterizes the joint activities and relationships of people, the relationships of the individual in social groups and between social groups" ^{[4, p. 92]}. Exploring various aspects of human life, one should not belittle the colossal role of the social environment, social communication, the role of the cultural experience of mankind ^[11].

Based on our understanding of natural justice, we conclude that an individual's desire to be successful, to have life advantages over others, to achieve his own well-being and increase his well-being, that is, the desire to rise above others, can be considered his natural right. Such a desire can be justified if it is mediated by natural talent, hard work and equal conditions of competition. It seems that the desire for competition and competition with other people is inherent in human nature.

Natural justice is a set of norms and principles of justice, conditioned by objective laws and the essence of human nature. It should, ultimately, determine the various social norms in the life of any society. But in methodological terms, one should not forget about one of the main requirements of dialectics about the concreteness of truth. Therefore, despite the importance of natural justice, the legal and moral norms of a society should also take into account its specific historical conditions ^{[4, p. 93]}.

Justice, which is commonly called social, is the social norms that actually exist in a certain society. They determine its legal order and moral guidelines. These norms are the result of the ideas of the proper people themselves, representing this society. At the same time, individuals may not realize that the true nature of the norms of morality, justice and law is ultimately determined by the needs and interests of various social groups, their economic interests, which follows from the materialistic understanding of history. For all the importance of social justice, we give priority to natural justice. However, we note that in the real life of a particular society, they may coincide if its legal and moral norms correspond to natural justice. However, such a match is actually unlikely.

Emphasizing the role of natural physical and spiritual inclinations of individuals, in addition to intellectual abilities, one should not lose sight of their organizational abilities in any important matter, the ability to optimally manage the economy, the ability to improvise in difficult conditions. Once again, we note the importance of people having purposefulness and hard work. Identifying the factors that generate social inequality in society, we note their complex nature.

Among other things, a person strives to realize his natural potential in a competitive environment, the need for survival in a difficult situation, in a situation where the need for survival involves struggle. He has the right, granted to him by nature, to dispose of his abilities for the sake of satisfying his needs, in order to improve his well-being. In a competitive environment, it is natural for a person to strive to be better and higher than others. And in a situation when a person with outstanding abilities manages to achieve this goal due to the fact that his activity for the benefit of society brings him huge benefits, the justice of nature triumphs ^{[4, p. 95]}.

The wisest, rational and just possible decision of society regarding the life of more naturally gifted and hardworking individuals, expressed through the legal and moral norms of this society, is seen by us in creating conditions for highly effective activity of these individuals for the benefit of this society. That is, their own well-being should be conditioned by the benefits, the benefits that they bring to this society. These people should not gain any superiority over the rest of society without benefiting them. Their work should be rewarded according to their merits. The proposed social practice will not contradict natural justice.

In public life, a situation is possible when such high achievements and the social status of gifted individuals may be mistakenly perceived as a social injustice by certain groups of people. We define such people as slaves in spirit. These are mostly people who are driven by a slavish mentality, envy and hatred of talented and successful individuals. Such a worldview remains with these people, even if they realize the real merits of more successful individuals to society. Also, lazy people and those who are not able to assess the current situation adequately, i.e. ignorant, can act against such remuneration on merit. And people who are able to reflect such a social reality adequately do not hinder the activities of more successful individuals, but try to improve their personal level themselves. We respect such people.

Those who hinder the successful activity of gifted individuals actually hinder the progressive development of society. In the latter case, in the absence of highly effective activities of talented people, society will remain in conditions of low labor productivity. Such equality will mean equality of poverty and low level of development of society. However, the criterion of justice is associated with an increase in labor productivity in a given society, with an increase in the well-being of individuals and the well-being of society as a whole, with the comprehensive development of the individual and society. "Envy, revenge and hatred for everything outstanding, for extraordinary and talented people make a person a slave of these feelings, a slave in spirit. No passion takes hold of a person like envy" ^{[6, p. 98]}.

It is in relation to such people that the use of the concept of rabble is legitimate. According to our understanding of justice, the rabble are people with a certain psychology, mindset, worldview. But such people also include individuals who are quite successful, if at the same time they envy those who have a higher level of personal development ^{[5, p. 136]}.

According to the views of A.M. Kovalev, even in a society with equal opportunities for all its citizens, there will be social inequality due to unequal natural inclinations. He calls this a natural injustice and suggests ways to eliminate it ^{[10, p. 440]}. However, such views contradict natural justice, since, as we believe, inequality due to natural inclinations cannot be unfair.

At the same time, it is worth recalling one of the main provisions of our views, set forth by us in various works, that full and actual equality between people in the benefits they receive from society in real social practice, as a rule, means only equality of poverty ^{[6, p. 96]}. We also recall that the distribution system based on equalization cannot contribute to improving the standard of living of individuals and the entire population of the country, does not contribute to the growth of public wealth. With such a system, some people do not strive to work with full dedication, improve their skills and increase knowledge. The remuneration of employees should be their remuneration on merit ^{[6, p. 99]}.

Of course, at the same time, based on considerations of humanity, society can provide a certain minimum of well-being for people who are not able to compete with others for objective reasons, for example, for health reasons. To achieve these goals, public consumption funds are being created, which should not lead individuals to dependent psychology. For such phenomena as dependency generated by a "good" society, unfortunately, take place in social practice. As dialectics teaches, any virtue in a situation of violation of the measure turns into its opposite, that is, in this case, good turns into evil. Social guarantees and a high level of labor productivity should not generate unreasonable and unfair dependency in society on the part of lazy, irresponsible and parasites who want to live at someone else's expense.

A fair measure of social inequality, embodied in the policy of the state and expressed in the legal norms of this society, is reflected in its social structure, giving rise to a legitimate elite. This concept requires its own concretization, because the attitude not only to this social group, but even the attitude to the very concept of the elite among different social groups and strata of the population can be completely different. We need to identify how legitimate the use of this concept is. Opinions on this issue differ fundamentally. There is an opinion that the elite are special groups of people who occupy the most important positions in this society – political, financial, etc. These groups have a specific culture of behavior, a special way of life, which are not always understood by the majority of the population ^{[6, p. 97]}. In relation to the elite, for example, in the political sphere, some authors use the concept of elitocracy, implying that certain persons have political power. In public practice, such an elite is not always guided by justice in its activities, interpreting it only in its own interests ^{[9, p. 60]}. That is, in this case, we can talk about the elitism of these persons only on formal grounds.

We consider the use of the concept of elite for certain social groups legitimate. This concept characterizes groups of people who are really special. The peculiarity of these groups can be stated as a result of the evaluation of the outstanding results of their activities for the benefit of society. The elite are individuals who have high achievements and great services to this society, these are those who have reached the highest level in terms of personal characteristics. Such personalities can manifest themselves in the economy, in politics, and in the spiritual sphere. It can be concluded about the natural nature of the generation of advanced personalities by any society, therefore, elitism is necessarily inherent in any society ^{[6, p. 97]}.

Conclusion.

Based on the concept of equitable inequality, it can be concluded that in the social structure of any society, it is possible to have a social group, which we define as a natural aristocracy, and the presence of relatively lower strata of society. At the same time, the presence in any society of a social group, which we conditionally call the rabble, is not mandatory and natural. However, individuals who do not want to work for the benefit of society, who want to receive various benefits at the expense of the work of others, should find themselves in their proper place in the social hierarchy.

We also note once again that we consider the principle of merit distribution to be fundamental for society, but not the only one, despite the importance of the conditional concept of natural justice. Society in its life activity should also be guided by the concepts of morality, humanity and mutual assistance. L.V. Skvortsov reasonably believes that human relations, alien to these concepts, entail the destruction of the principle of justice ^[12].

The implementation of a full measure of social equality in a given society is theoretically possible if it creates for all members of society opportunities for free activity and exchange, the possibility of choosing the form of ownership, equal rights and obligations, de facto equality of all before the law in the presence of a real mechanism of legal security. The main condition for genuine social equality is equal opportunities for all-round personal development for all. This problem remains relevant in any particular society and requires further research.