What’s Justice Got to Do With It? How Justice Works With Charity to Uplift the Poor

Listen to this article:

Ancient philosophers and early church fathers collectively identified seven key virtues as indispensable to human interaction and flourishing: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Faith, Hope, and Charity. They emanated from the belief that God, the ultimate moral authority, was their source and that absolute morality was grounded only in Him. In some sense, distinguishing virtues is similar to parsing colors in a rainbow. I.e., while they are a continuous spectrum with naturally blurry boundaries, categorizing seven colors (with subsets of shade, as needed) provides a framework to delineate differences and provide a means of expression. 

Over the centuries — and most notably, in recent times — vigorous debate has ensued about whether justice or charity is the most seminal for poverty alleviation. The fiercest disputes occur when both sides believe they are on the side of the angels. But since zeal doesn’t necessarily correlate with correctness, we need to dig deeper than slogans. To ensure promotion of the right solutions for the right reasons, we need a clear picture of the difference between the two. And further, whether they can be employed harmoniously to propel those in need to a flourishing life.

At True Charity, we value our eponymous virtue. A century ago, charity was a synonym of “love,” meaning “to will the good of the other.” These days, “charity” has the more specific meaning of “voluntary aid rendered to people in need.” This shift is not a problem because both are needed; our conviction is that the modern sense of “charity” is a natural expression of love.

But even as we uphold charity as a necessary expression of love, we know it alone will not lead to a flourishing society. Other virtues are essential. For instance, people who intend to be generous, but lack self-control, will find they have very little left to share with those in need. People who receive generosity, but lack wisdom, may squander their newfound opportunities.

Which brings us to justice. Western philosophers encapsulated its meaning with the Latin phrase suum cuique: “to each his own.” This assumes people have some tangible and intangible assets (like homes and free speech) that are rightly theirs and others should respect their ownership. Precisely what these assets (or “rights”) are can be hotly debated, but logic dictates that they must be grounded in a universal moral source (such as God) to be anything more than personal preference.

In this telling, justice is primarily concerned with preventing and reversing exploitation. Usage of the Hebrew word “mishpat” (“justice”) in Scripture affirms that. Verses addressing justice in the context of vulnerable groups like widows and orphans, describe refraining from oppression or intervening to stop it. For instance:

Isaiah 10:1-2 says, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”

Jeremiah 22:3 reads, “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”

Thus, our conviction is charity and justice should be seen side-by-side and stems from the premise that not all good things are “rights.” Rights can be procured by justice, which often involves the use of force through self-defense or legal protection. Charity goes beyond merely giving people what they are entitled to. In one apt synopsis of how the relationship works at the individual level: “charity leads us to help our neighbor in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him.” In other words, justice is a minimum, achievable standard for interaction with others. Charity has no definite upper bound, since you can always love or assist someone to a greater degree.

Some poverty doubtless stems from injustice, and in many cases, exploitation is the majority cause of regional poverty. This is most apparent in cultural systems like apartheid, kleptocracy, slavery, feudalism, or caste. In other cases, injustice-induced poverty results from negligence rather than malice. For instance, medical malpractice or drunk driving could both harm and lead a victim to poverty. In another instance, a malformed attempt at private charity or a government policy could harm instead of help, leaving victims in its wake. In any event, ending such abuse and providing restitution is the unflinching demand of Lady Justice. 

But even if all humans treat each other fairly, intelligence, cultural inheritance, natural disasters, birth year, location, whether one’s grandparents made good life choices, physical health, and more can play into our ability to prosper. In the race of life, not everyone starts from the same line — and that can’t always be attributed to nefarious oppression. In other situations, a sorry state results from poor choices despite advantages, such as when the prodigal son squandered his ample inheritance and found himself eating pig slop as his just dessert (Luke 15:11-16). Further, even when poor outcomes are due to exploitation (such as child abuse) just restitution of a lost childhood isn’t something that can be reclaimed from the abuser. In other words, traditional justice, with its focus on ending oppression, is inadequate to lift all people from poverty and suffering.

Some propose the solution is “social justice.” That is, expanding justice to include equal outcomes — or at least an equal starting line —enforced by law through wealth and income redistribution. However, such proposals inevitably concentrate dangerous amounts of power in the hands of a few who arbitrate and “handicap” “runners” based on where they start the race. The materialist assumptions of this framework tend to ignore that relationships also matter to one’s life outcomes and satisfaction. Indeed, there are very few proposals to redistribute parents and siblings (though Karl Marx promoted eliminating family altogether).

We also observe that when fully implemented, the primary effect of that system is that no one runs their best race. It therefore drastically shrinks the economic and social pie and anywhere it is tried, breeds bitter contention rather than utopia.

A better solution is effective charity fueled by compassion. It involves recognizing that unlike a race, life is not a zero-sum game. Those further ahead, running their best race, have a loving responsibility to compassionately share with those who started further back. This time-tested, proven approach will not equalize all outcomes but will maximize them, allowing every person to flourish meaningfully.

That blueprint will still give rise to wide-ranging discussion on the appropriate application of justice and charity in a given case. Yet distinguishing the two firmly establishes the need for both as partner virtues en route to a world where the will of Him in Heaven is better done on earth. In that world, we will find a recommitment to justice and a revival of compassionate charity.

The True Charity Network exists to help you learn, connect, and influence in the realm of effective charity.  Learn more about the Network here.

Already a member? Get access to all of your benefits through the member portal.