Ethical foundations of the economy in light of the Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II.

Introduction

John Paul II says that work is the key to "social question" [1, p. 3]. It is also the key to understanding economic issues.

The Creator gave man a command to subordinate the earth to himself. This means that man, by his very nature, is the subject of work. Doing work, man not only transforms nature and adapts it to his needs, he also deepens his human nature. And although work can be a hardship, it is not incompatible with the subjectiveness of man. However, it can also be oppressive and, in such case, man's subjectiveness is infringed. This means that work, in its subjective meaning, assumes a definite order of work [1, p.4,6,9].

In the deliberations of John Paul II about the economy, two states should be distinguished: that which is consistent with the essence of things and that which is the reality. That which is real can differ from that which corresponds to the essence of things. Such is the course of John Paul II's reasoning about the priority of labor in relation to capital. Capitol refers to the means of production, which are created by work. As such, capital is a secondary category in relation to work. From the standpoint of the subject of work, capital is only an instrument. When capital gains its unique "subjectiveness" in relation to man (by subordinating work to itself), it is contrary to the nature of things [1, p. 7,12,13,14].

Having pointed to the priority of labor in relation to capital, John Paul II states: "In the light of the above truth we see clearly, first of all, that capital cannot be separated from labor; in no way can labor be opposed to capital or capital to labor, and still less can the actual people behind these concepts be opposed to each other" [1, p. 13]. Such a state of things corresponds to the very essence of human nature, that which is consistent with the Creator's will. It is an ideal state. Whether any particular reality is consistent with it is a separate problem.

Man as a subject of work is both an ontological and normative category. The Creator made man the subject of work and man should observe this will of the Creator. This is the most general norm of the economic order in the understanding of John Paul II. A historical crystallization of this norm is the principle of priority of labor in relation to capital. (1) Other ethical norms of economic life, which are pointed out by John Paul II, supplement and expand this supreme norm -- subjectiveness of work or priority of labor in relation to capital.

The World of Values

John Paul II attaches a fundamental importance to the principle of social justice (using the term "social justice" itself). He refers this principle to particular societies (meaning justice in the relations between social classes) and especially to international relations (meaning justice in relations between countries and continents). John Paul II treats the distribution of riches as a fundamental issue within the problematic area of social justice. This distribution is based upon the principle of a common purpose of goods. "God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth's goods" [2, p. 31]. (2)

Since John Paul II links work with human nature itself, it is obvious that he attaches great importance to a high rate of employment and, in his own terminology, to a "satisfactory level of employment." "The obligation to earn ones bread by the sweat of one's brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace" [2, p. 43].

The relations between people in the production processes are perceived by John Paul II not only in economic, but also in ethical, categories. For example, John Paul II believes that although profit is a measure of a company's economic effectiveness, it should not be the only measure of effective operations. The commonwealth of people accomplishing economic and non-economic goals--both connected with man's dignity--should be of primary importance. The company as a commonwealth of people can also be a factor in its economic effectiveness [2, p. 35]. In accordance with the teachings of the Church since time immemorial, John Paul II points to the superiority of spiritual over material values. Of course, he includes the issue of transcendence in the problematic area of spiritual values.

The possession of material goods is subordinated by John Paul II to the principle: to be and not to have. "It is not wrong to want to live better what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward 'having' rather than 'being,' and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself' [2, p. 36].

John Paul II attaches great importance to protecting the natural environment acknowledging that although the Creator gave man a command to subordinate the earth to himself, man cannot do it in whichever way he pleases [2, p.37], The natural environment is one of two collective goods about which John Paul II writes. The other is the "human environment." It is the totality of relations between people, which should have a Christian character. "Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given to him, but man too is God's gift to man. He must, therefore, respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed" (2).

System of Ownership, Market and the State

The world of values should constitute a basis for shaping a positive economic order. It should be accomplished by means of different instruments and, in the most general sense, by the system of ownership, the market and the State. These instruments should be functional in relation to the world of values. They are valuable, not by themselves, but because they help to achieve the values connected with man's nature. This is the stance taken by John Paul II.

John Paul II approves of the private form of ownership, as long as it is subordinated to the principle of a common use of goods. He admits, however, that there are other forms of ownership, assuming that each of them permits employees to be the subject of work. His deliberations about the system of ownership indicate that the choice of ownership form should make allowances for historical conditions and empiricism. This differs from the stance taken by extreme liberals, who feel that the private form of ownership is the only legitimate form. (3)

John Paul II stresses the importance of the market in terms of allocating the means of production and satisfying human needs. Simultaneously, he draws attention to the fact that the market does not allow for the satisfaction of all needs (not supported by effective demand or connected with collective goods--the natural environment and the "human environment"), and that some needs should not be satisfied by the market (for instance, demand for drugs and pornography) because they are socially harmful. Thus, John Paul II appreciates the importance of the market, but also points to its significant weaknesses [2, p. 34,40]. In this way, too, he differs from extreme liberals.

John Paul II also attaches significant importance to the economic and social functions performed by the State, In this connection, he says: "It is the task of the State to provide for the defense and preservation of common goods, such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces" (2). Considering, however, that the concept of the "human environment" is very broad, the scope of the State's intervention in socio-economic relations has to be broad as well. And, thus, John Paul II attributes a much wider scope of functions to the State than liberals do.

Historical Reality

John Paul II describes different cases where the principle of "the priority of labor" in relation to capital has been impinged, both in Capitalist countries and in the former Socialist countries. He treats the infringing of this principle as a distinctive feature of Capitalism. In this sense, John Paul II attributes a clearly pejorative meaning to "capital" and links this term not only with the countries called "Capitalist" but also with the countries called "Socialist" [1, p.7]. (John Paul II also uses generally accepted earlier division of the countries into Capitalist and Socialist when discussing various other problems.)

John Paul II has particularly negative things to say about the 19th Century brand of Capitalism, called "primary Capitalism."

In that era, Capitalists monopolized the ownership of the means of production. Workers were deprived of this ownership, leaving their "strengths" at the "disposal" of Capitalists, while Capitalists were guided by the principle of maximum profit It was against this backdrop that a deep conflict appeared between capital and labor [1, p. 11].