Economics professor David Rose recently published an essay arguing that the very notion of “social justice” is both misguided and dangerous. Misguided because it sees inequality as prima facie evidence of injustice due to a misunderstanding of how a free market economy really operates. But also dangerous because social justice advocates attempts to solve moral problems that don’t really exist and thereby reduce society’s ability to solve moral problems that really do such as poverty.

Rose’s piece is a brief but clear exposition of how the social justice industry goes logically astray. But in the process it also provides some insight into how people go logically astray in thinking about justice of the Divine sort when they encounter situations of tzaddik v’ra lo and rasha v’tov lo — seemingly incommensurate levels of reward and punishment.

The problem with social justice theory which advocates governmental redistribution of wealth to produce a more just outcome across society writes Rose is that it

implicitly focuses on the equal division of output without accounting for input. Suppose that Bob works 10 hours a day every day creating 100 units of output. Mark does nothing and thereby creates no units of output. Mark then insists that he should get no less than 50 units of output per day. Even a child knows this would be patently unfair. And even a child knows that Bob won’t indulge Mark for long.

In small group contexts it is easy to see that when judging fairness and equality it is foolish to limit attention to the division of output. But we no longer live solely in small group contexts where cause-and-effect relationships between inputs and output are self-evident. In our large group world the connection between input and output is bewilderingly complex and therefore prone to magical thinking.

Those who do not know economics have no framework to connect the dots of cause-and-effect as it were and therefore have no choice but to take the amount of total output as given for what other assumption could they possibly make? This effectively delinks input (effort) from output.

Professor Rose notes the irony that social justice theory “tries to solve a minor problem (unequal outcomes arousing feelings of envy) but in so doing undermines society’s ability to solve a major problem (providing for the basic needs of the needy). But one can only see this irony if one knows enough economics to understand that output is not manna from heaven so one cannot redistribute output without affecting the amount of output to be distributed.”

This is a good read on a topic of contemporary societal relevance. But now as Jews let’s replace “output” in the preceding paragraphs with “positive pain-free life circumstances” and “input” with “living in accordance with the Divine Will.” And with that we can now paraphrase Professor Rose’s thesis as follows:

Those who do not know Hashem’s accountings “have no framework to connect the dots of cause-and-effect” and therefore in the absence of actual knowledge simply take the amount of total output i.e. the expectation to be able to live life out in maximal comfort and pleasure as a given.  In other words many people apply “Divine justice theory” in much the same way that Professor Rose describes the progressive approach to social justice theory: “[I]t effectively considers only half of the relevant story when making judgments about what is fair and therefore just across the whole of any society.”

This is of course quite understandable since like economics the connection between input and output in spiritual terms “is bewilderingly complex and therefore prone to magical thinking.” But the interrelationship between spiritual input and physical output is more than just bewilderingly complex — it is inherently unknowable to us mortals. The factors that bear upon the “input” that we well “put in” to our spiritual lives which in turn determines the “output” we receive in our physical lives are not only legion in number and given to an infinity of subtle gradations but are also the exclusive purview of the One Above.

Only He knows what we are capable of accomplishing in a vast number of different areas what tools we possess intellectually emotionally physically monetarily towards those ends; only He knows what challenges and boosts our upbringing schooling environment family friends experiences etc. have presented to us; only He knows what merits and demerits our ancestors — and perhaps our own past visits here — have provided us with all the way back into the mists of time; only He knows with surgical precision what we have thought said and done on a moment-by-moment basis over the course of our lifetimes how those thoughts and deeds match his expectations of us and what effect they had on others now and in the future; only He knows what effect the “output” he grants us will have on us for better or for worse both physically and spiritually; and only He knows what He has in store for us in both This World and the One yet to come.

Only He knows all of this about each one of His creations — and only He can know all this. And only before Him is revealed the interplay between the entirety of each individual’s “data” and between all of the “data” of all the individuals who have passed through this world.

And so it certainly is understandable given the “bewildering complexity” and inherent inscrutability of the “input” that people are “prone to magical thinking” about the “output” in their lives believing they’re somehow entitled to it in its most positive form in unending abundance. Like proponents of unlimited government entitlement programs they “focus on the equal division of output without accounting for input.” But that doesn’t make such beliefs in either context logically defensible.

In my time in Jewish outreach I would sometimes teach about this topic popularly known as “Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?” after a book by that title in which a Conservative clergyman rejected outright core Jewish beliefs (thus giving rise to the question of “Why Do Good People Write Bad Books?”). I would point out to my students that the book’s very title makes assumptions about the definition of “bad things” and “good people” that at a minimum ought not to go unexamined.

But then I would suggest that in truth there’s an even more basic question to be asked than “why do bad things happen to good people?” That query is: “Why do things happen?” period. That is to say why is there a world at all why are we in it and what are our responsibilities so long as we’re here? Only after pondering that question and delving into what Torah has to say about it can one proceed to intelligently consider the more oft-asked one.

But interestingly that first question doesn’t seem to occur to many people at least so long as the good times are rolling and they’re able to lull themselves into taking the “amount of total output as given.”

Imagine a fellow who strolls by a banquet hall in which a sumptuous smorgasbord beckons. With neither the feast’s sponsor nor any other guest in sight he partakes heartily of the lavish feast presuming it has all been prepared solely for his unfettered enjoyment though he can’t begin to imagine why. Although life experience has taught him that that there are no “free lunches” to be had anywhere he quickly devours the delicacies at hand asking no questions of the wait staff lest perchance he learn the truth of the matter. Only once stricken by food poisoning does he indignantly demand explanation and accountability — justice! — for his plight.

That’s us.