Extrinsic Injustice

In “Justice, Respect, and Treating People as Equals,” Andrew Mason argues that social equality “involves but extends further than what justice requires of us” (129). Acts are matters concerning justice only when meant to advantage or disadvantage another, with the disadvantage required for injustice ranging from worsened conditions to instances of “psychological harm” or domination (131). Mason offers many examples of people neglecting to treat members of ethnic minorities as equals (132) and claims that, although these acts seem morally objectionable, they are not “intrinsically unjust.” Intrinsic injustice, he clarifies, refers only to some feature of an act, not its effects (133). Being treated unequally disadvantage or cause adverse psychological effects for those slighted, but this would be a case of “extrinsic” injustice since the potentially negative outcome of an act is unnecessary for it to …show more content…
He suggests that this is due to the extrinsic injustice present, or the effects (136). Moral condemnation also depends on whether the attitudes producing the acts were widespread, and whether the acts figure in an “accumulative harm” (137). Some may insist, however, that they are immoral regardless of their part in a collectively harmful set of behaviors. Mason thinks that this intuition stems from the idea that we are morally required to treat others as equals because the alternative involves disrespect (138). Even if individuals are warranted in demanding equal “recognition respect,” he maintains that failing to equally give this respect is not intrinsically unjust (141). A disrespectful act is intrinsically unjust only when it is essentially disadvantageous, or “by its nature deprive[s] people of an important good” (142). On this view, failing to treat others as equals is inherently immoral, but not always intrinsically unjust