The Scientific American web site recently has had some articles that should interest those who want to understand our sense of morality and justice, and how it relates to politics today.
In "The Moral Life of Babies" the article discusses research on babies which shows acts based on empathy and compassion at such early ages that indicates an in-born inclination toward such behavior. Of course, this doesn't mean that is the only inclination babies demonstrate, but it's important to understand social and moral acts are not just culturally learned behavior. (It's also necessary to remember that something like 1% of the population is born with a brain defect which prevents normal emotional interactions with other people.)
What would you say are the moral principles which young children share?
A list would include: An understanding that helping is morally good, and that harming, hindering, or otherwise thwarting the goals of another person is morally bad. A rudimentary sense of justice—an understanding that good guys should be rewarded and bad guys should be punished. An initial sense of fairness—in particular, that there should be an equal division of resources. And alongside these principles are moral emotions, including empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, and righteous anger.
Presumably, the in-born inclinations don't tell a child how to respond to each possible social situation. It's a more general motivation which requires a person to use interpretation to apply it to particular cases. One also assumes this is supplemented by learning in our personal social experiences. Keeping that in mind, we can still say that people of all views of justice and politics begin with some common in-born inclinations underlying those views. Applying this may not be easy, but it's hard to imagine that big money won't be trying to make use of it for its own purposes. It would be dangerous for us not to understand it and apply it.
- - - - -
"Bad Behavior Gets 'Paid Forward' Even More Than Good" is an article which may have great social implications. Many of us may be familiar with how kindnesses are often "paid forward". When Person A holds a door for Person B behind him, Person B is more likely to hold the door for Person C behind him. All sorts of good deeds make the recipient more likely to do good deeds to others. This article discusses how when Person A acts greedy toward Person B, Person B is more likely to act greedy to Person C.
It's an unfortunate tendency, as it doesn't directly take action against Person A, teaching that person a lesson. There's much that could be said about this. Let me make a point which may not be drawn by some, and which is appropriate to this forum of social justice. Consider the implications of this human tendency in the context of a social system based on greed. An average person is squeezed by the greed of his employer and by the greed of businesses selling him things. When someone in his family needs medical care, his insurance company may deny a reasonable claim because of greed. His landlord may not make needed repairs because of greed. And so on.
Those born without normal emotions are not held back from ruthless social climbing as others may be - putting more of them in positions where they can inflict their greed on many. A society which allows so much power in the hands of those who act based on greed can magnify the bad behavior of the victims of that greed. It makes one wonder how differently average people would act if they were not subjected to so much greedy action by businesses.