… and justice for all - a new theory of justice

Not being American and familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance, the first time I came across the phrase “and justice for all” was when I was a teenager and found an English version of a DC comic of Justice League in English (it was featured on the cover) and sometime later on Metallica's eponymous album. These four words have always touched me deep inside. While my childhood heroes fought for the downtrodden in an inherently unjust world the term Social Justice Warrior (SJW) has decidedly become pejorative.

America as well as many other parts of the world have been becoming increasingly polarized regarding what is just and fair. One of the main dividing lines in politics. Republicans are famously pro-life whereas Democrats are pro-choice. There is a whole range of issues where we have a different sense of justice. Scientists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that we differ in our moral foundations. Conservatives highly value authority, sanctity and loyalty, whereas liberals value fairness, care and liberty more highly than conservatives. When it comes to our worldviews conservatives are likely to have a more pessimistic view of human nature and an “every man for himself” stance, whereas liberals are more likely to think that criminals are victims of their social circumstances and should be reintegrated into society and not too harshly punished. Accordingly, there are also differences in how universalist our sense of justice is and how severe we think punishments should be. Here is an overview of how our sense of justice differs:

• according to our values
• according to our worldview
• how universalist our sense of justice is
• how severe punishments should be

Returning to the Pledge, we see that it is made up of a conservative part and a liberal part:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible , with liberty and justice for all

Now let’s analyse your sense of justice in a concrete case: Edward Snowden. If your sense of justice is coloured red he has committed a serious crime violating the first part of the Pledge and your values of loyalty and authority and should accordingly be severely punished. Treason and espionage are punishable with capital punishment in the US and you may even think this law should apply to Snowden.  If you are a liberal, on the other hand, Snowdon hasn’t done much wrong but fought the good fight for liberty and justice. With the truth much higher in your priorities of values than patriotism, you may even feel that Snowdon should be pardoned and/or even celebrated as a hero. Wow, what a difference! Just as stunning as Schrödinger’s cat.

I have argued that an extremely liberal stance is a genetic inheritance from our hunter-gatherer past, whereas an extremely conservative stance is a genetic inheritance from our agricultural past (adaptations to communal farming). Our sense of justice is therefore evolutionarily influenced by our ancestors’ subsistence strategies:

If we plot these evolutionary tribes onto Schlomo Schwartz’s map of values, we find that the values and subsistence strategies match: farmers value security and conformism and hunters value justice and freedom.

From here on we can explore the differences in sense of justice. I am using research done by Cultural Dynamics to visualize these differences.

Let’s start with universal justice. From the map, it becomes clear that hunter-gatherer types (N types in MBTI) care most about universal justice. There is a decreasing gradient towards the male pastoralist profile, with most farmer types and the caregiving pastoralist profile in between.

Hunter-gatherers types are therefore the ones who feel injustice towards outgroup members most. It is typically hunter-gatherer types who cry foul when injustice happens in far-away countries: child labour, human rights violations, violations against freedom of speech. Hunter-gatherer types care about them most, no matter where on Earth or the Universe these injustices may happen. And these people are often branded as do-gooders or even worse, social justice warriors.

Whereas the hunter-gatherer sense of justice can be best labelled “universalist”, the farmer flavour of justice can be labelled “law and order”. As our map shows, it is farmer types who care most about other people sticking to the rules and agree with the statements “I believe that people should do what they are told. I think people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching.” Not surprisingly, hunter types are least concerned about this kind of justice, which many of them perceive as mere “conformism”.

Accordingly, hunter types and farmer types may be found occupying different areas of justice. Whereas the typical policeman (law and order) is a farmer type, hunter types are likely overrepresented in intelligence services, fighting for American universalist values worldwide. This is how Snowden (a hunter type) ended up working for the NSA.

Let’s turn to our different worldviews. The provisioning (male) profiles of food-producing farmers and herders are the ones most likely to agree with the statement “I believe that people can be divided into two classes – the weak and the strong. I think that issues of societal advantage or disadvantage are spurious.” It’s not hard to see the origin of classes and castes in this attitude. On the flip side, it also contains the origins of meritocracy and high productivity.

The “two classes” view shows an inverse relationship with “forgiveness”. “I believe that it is best to forgive and forget. I never seek vengeance and always allow others to make a fresh start.” This attitude is highest in hunters and lowest in the farmer and male pastoralist profiles.

Finally, strict discipline is firmly located in the farmer world. Farmer types have a very strong tendency to agree with:  “I believe that strict discipline is in a child's best interests. I think that criminals should face severe sentences to deter them from offending again.”  Once again it’s hunter-gatherer types who show the opposite trends. This is also borne out by anthropological research. Child coercion is non-existent in forager societies. Children are neither forced to do any work nor are they ever criticised or disciplined.

I have argued that neurodiverse children (ASD, ADHD, gifted) tend to be hunter-gatherer types who have a strong sense of egalitarian hunter-gatherer justice. These children often defy authority from an early age (e.g. by frequent tantrums) and authoritarian parenting or education may worsen their conditions, e.g. by developing ODD (oppositional defiant disorder).

This may be the case when “farmer” parents have a “hunter-gatherer” child and they try to make the child conform via strict discipline. Hunter-gatherer type children are also overrepresented in foster children. Every single foster child I personally know is a hunter-gatherer type. However, it’s not my personal impression only, ASD and neurodiversity, in general, are overrepresented also according to official statistics.  According to recent findings, children with autism are 2.4 times more likely to enter into foster care than their peers.

I think if people are aware of our differently evolved justice senses, it can contribute to more understanding and ultimately a more just world.

Check out my latest book for more background information on mapping human nature:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09LSF98WV