Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

THE INJUSTICE OF JUSTICE AND THE JUSTICE OF INJUSTICE 249
occur when the boundary lines governing the two types of
comparative and noncomparative injustice, of what constitutes
inequity and inequality cross. Often the demands of both
comparative and noncomparative, equity and equality are easily
harmonized. Sometimes this is not so easily accomplished. 45
This reality is clearly reflected in the Pauline corpus of
scripture. Prescinding from the scholarly question regarding
which parts of the corpus were actually written by Paul, it is
obvious that the early Christian communities had to face the
concrete results of this tension and we find in these writings an
attempt to formulate moral principles which would enable them
to harmoniously balance the demands of both. To the
Corinthians and Ephesians Paul preached a respect for the
proper order necessary for the harmony of the community which
closely approximated the Socratic ideal of justice, a comparative
equality and a noncomparative equity. All are members of the
same body, but within the body all have specific roles. Justice
consists in respect for these roles, ordered according to the
demands of the love which unifies them all. Not all are called to
be apostles, or teachers, or prophets, but those who are should
exercise their function well and freely. 46 But to the Romans he
preached the primacy of the principle of equity, and to the
Galatians the principle of noncomparative equality. 47 God judges
each one impartially according to his or her deeds; but at the
same time, there is no difference between Jew or Greek, slave or
free, male or female. The reality of social organization grounded
in culturally defined definitions of role and status are recognized
and respected, but the differences resulting from the nature of
the social grouping are relativized and minimized by the oneness
of all flowing out of the power of baptism.
45
As Feinberg points out: “Since both noncomparative and comparative
justice make valid claims on us, and since it is in principle possible for both
to be satisfied, we must conclude that in so far as a given act or arrangement
fails to satisfy one or the other of the two kinds of principles, it is not as just as
it could be.” J. FEINBERG, Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty, p. 284.
46
1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4
47
Romans 2:5-11; Galatians 3:26-28