The Deception of Justice: When Science Becomes Moralism

I wrote Zombies of Marx—available in all Amazon stores in both Italian and English (https://amzn.eu/d/6Doj30j)—because I believe that science, particularly in the field of social sciences, has taken a dangerous turn, one that, in my view, originates from ancient superstitions.

The idea that a formula capable of organizing society to guarantee happiness and prosperity for all exists is an old aspiration, dating back to The Republic by Plato and finding its most complete expression in Marx’s critique of political economy.

The experience of communism quickly demonstrated that social dynamics are unpredictable and that social determinism serves, at best, to convince the naive. This lesson came at a steep price: it cost humanity millions of lives.

Just when the spectacular failure of communism seemed to have finally freed knowledge from any purpose other than knowledge itself, Derrida’s deconstruction—especially in the Anglophone world—replaced social determinism, the search for the formula of prosperity, with ethical necessity: the pursuit of pure justice.

The study of reality has turned into the study of mysterious and often bizarre dynamics of oppression; the categories of knowledge have been reduced to obscure social constructs; and an ethical code aimed at repressing a significant part of human nature has been imposed on every aspect of life.

Zombies of Marx was born, then, out of frustration with this attitude within the world of knowledge. It is an attempt to demystify certain superstitions that have become an integral part of what Kuhn called normal science.

A few days ago, my conviction was confirmed by Joseph Stiglitz. In an interview with an Italian television network, he repeatedly stated, as a Nobel laureate, that imposing an extraordinary tax on the rich is the right thing to do.

It is a statement we often hear, but in this case, it irritated me because it was presented as a scientific formula endorsed by a Nobel Prize winner. To me, however, it sounded like the words of a man seeking easy approval.

When we say that it is right for the rich to pay more than the poor for public services, we are merely expressing a vague and highly imprecise opinion.

For this statement to have any real meaning, we would first need to define who the rich are—that is, what level of wealth distinguishes the rich from the poor. We would also need to determine how much should be taken from the rich—that is, the exact amount they should pay.

In short, we would need to agree on the concept of justice—and that is truly impossible, because what we call Justice is nothing more than a sum of subjective beliefs influenced by individual experiences.

It seems to me that this pursuit of Justice is primarily aimed at manipulating the naive—convincing them, for example, that high taxation is necessary to redistribute wealth accumulated by the few, when in reality, it is the main cause of social mobility paralysis.

I believe that, rather than focusing on what is just, knowledge should concern itself with what is true.