3.1. Foundational Theory of Ethics and Social Justice
The introduction to the curriculum should position the concept of justice in ethics and trace its evolution through the history of philosophy and ethics from ancient to modern times. Through this, students can acquire a foundational knowledge of the concept of justice.
First, social justice education is introduced through Rawls’ description of the priority of the right over the good [
11], and students are encouraged to distinguish between the right and the good theories in ethics. Building on the discussion about the priority of the positive over the good, the concept of justice in ethics is positioned through a discussion of the principle of harm to others as a minimum rule and the distinction between law and morality/ethics.
Next, an overview of theories of justice from ancient Greece to modern times provides knowledge about the history of theories of justice and situates the concept within the history of philosophy. In
The Republic, Plato ascribes an elevated status to the virtue of justice among the four primary virtues [
12]. Furthermore, in
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes a distinction between distributive and corrective justice [
13]. Each of these can be enhanced through active learning that exposes students to the original text.
The third issue is justice in the deontological theory of duty, with a focus on Kant’s theory of obligation. In Kant’s view, a just act accepts the demands of practical reason as obligatory and arises out of respect for it. A person’s autonomy and freedom exist when they obey the moral law according to the dictates of reason, without being influenced by any other heteronomous factors, including those inherent in us, such as emotions and desires [
14].
The fourth issue is justice in utilitarianism. In this regard, understanding Bentham’s dictum “everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one” [
15] is necessary as a fundamental principle and the foundational idea of utilitarianism—that maximizing the total well-being of those involved is a policy decision that serves justice. Utilitarianism is the first political theory to be referenced and plays a central role in public health policies to improve social welfare. Students should be familiar with the importance of utilitarianism in public health ethics and discuss its strengths—it is a theory that treats each person equally and promotes the well-being of society as a whole—and its weaknesses—consequences sometimes differ from ethical intuitions.
Social justice theory should include John Rawls’ theory of justice. Students should develop an understanding of the two principles of disparity from Rawls’ critique of utilitarianism. By doing so, students will be able to find the connection between the theories of justice up to and including modern theories of justice and gain a comprehensive historical understanding. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing social utility and is indifferent to how resources should be distributed. Rawls assumes that people in society have different life plans and views of happiness (conception of the good), and he constructs a principle for the correct distribution of the things that are necessary for each person to lead a social life, including freedom, income, and social status. He proposes the two principles of justice as the principles that free and rational people choose under the “veil of ignorance” in the “original position”. An understanding of the following two principles of justice is essential to a social justice curriculum:
First Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
This foundational knowledge will be critical as we examine, evaluate, and reflect on various policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3.2. Social Justice Theories
As an essential part of the social justice educational curriculum, students need to study ethical and philosophical theories of social justice. This includes studying at least three approaches—the liberal egalitarian, communitarian, and the social structure approach—in detail.
The first is Rawls’ and Daniels’ liberal egalitarian approach, which focuses primarily on wealth redistribution. Daniels’ approach explains that social justice requires the correction of health disparities and involves intervention in SDOH. He argues that the principle of fair opportunity is a key element in Rawls’ two principles of justice and that ensuring people’s normal functioning is essential for this. “Normal functioning” means that healthcare preserves people’s ability to participate in their society’s political, social, and economic life. It sustains them as fully participating citizens in all spheres of social life [
17]. Therefore, to ensure people’s equal opportunity, preventing disability and disease by improving public education, social security, and social welfare is essential. Based on recent socio-epidemiological studies, he also points out that health is affected by access to health care and is significantly influenced by the social distribution of income and SDOH. He argues that improving health disparities also requires reducing socioeconomic inequality. The high mortality rate among African Americans during the pandemic—despite the appropriate allocation of medical resources—indicates the need to address inequalities in income distribution and education to correct health disparities.
Social distancing policies as a countermeasure to the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated the situation of many socially vulnerable people. A particular problem in Japan has been the support for independent restaurants. For restaurant employees and managers—who already face a precarious situation due to fierce competition—the restrictions imposed by social distancing policies were a direct threat to their livelihood. Moreover, the government’s support for them has been slow in Japan. The right amount of support at the right time is necessary for those who are disadvantaged by public health policies.
The second is the communitarian approach, centered on Sandel and others. Sandel’s approach explains that social justice requires citizens’ solidarity. According to him, a just society requires citizens to think together about the meaning of the good life and create a public culture that accepts the moral and religious disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic society [
18]. Citizens’ moral and political responsibilities in a just society include the duties of solidarity and loyalty, historical memory, and faith. Modern liberalism—which envisions free and independent individuals and a value-neutral state—is not suited to a just society [
18]. He also states that a just society requires a strong sense of community and fostering of a civic morality among citizens that includes concern for the whole and dedication to the common good [
18]. In other words, Sandel argues that a just society is created when citizens actively engage in public deliberative discussion about the common good in a community connected to their own identity. The problems of socioeconomic disparity and racism in the United States today have increased the division and inequality among many citizens. It undermines the sense of national solidarity and belonging and erodes the civic morality necessary for social justice. To break this negative cycle, raising citizens’ sense of belonging and restoring solidarity are vital. Simultaneously, we must draw attention to the criticism that Sandel’s approach views the obligation of solidarity and loyalty as a moral obligation for citizens, which can lead to coercion and intolerance in society [
18]. However, overcoming these criticisms is possible by combining multiple approaches. Our society is pluralistic, and agreeing on a single morality and religion will be difficult. However, if public engagement in moral disagreement becomes more active, we can strengthen the basis for mutual respect. It seems possible to learn from and foster civic morality through repeated and contentious public debate, in which citizens also participate [
18].
COVID-19 destroyed existing social connections. For example, one of the problems in Japan was the disintegration of local communities in which the older population is at the center of the community. COVID-19 led to the isolation of the older population, who are rooted in their local communities without facilities such as Internet connections that can facilitate virtual communication. From a communitarian perspective, attempts to strengthen social solidarity are an essential perspective for future infectious disease control.
The third is the social structure approach, centered on Young. Young’s approach explains that promoting social justice requires addressing oppression as a social structure. Young maintains that injustice includes oppression and domination beyond distributive injustice [
19]. Oppression, which is structural, is not just the result of governmental choices or policies. Oppression refers to the enormous and profound injustices perpetrated by dominant groups through their responses to the structural features of everyday interactions, such as media and cultural stereotypes. Thus, it perpetuates the unconscious assumptions among well-meaning people in the dominant group in everyday life [
19]. Young identifies five faces of such oppression—Exploitation, Marginalization, Powerlessness, Cultural Imperialism, and Violence [
19]. For example, the high mortality rate of minority groups in pandemics may at least be related to “Cultural Imperialism” and “Powerlessness”. They may mistrust medical care owing to their experiences of “Cultural Imperialism” because of their stereotyped identity (uninsured, poor, and so forth). Moreover, they may be hesitant to receive medical care because of previous disrespect by medical professionals and the oppression of continued experiences of “powerlessness”. These may negatively impact their mortality rates. The problem with such oppression is that the dominant group is frequently unaware of its existence. Therefore, social justice needs to address such oppression, not the disappearance of differences [
19]. However, Young’s approach to justice is criticized for being deeply embedded in the social structure, meaning that even if we could identify the oppression, it may be challenging to address it. Indeed, the dominant group members are unaware of oppression and unconsciously biased, so it may be challenging to provide a quick-fix solution. However, that does not mean that we can do nothing or do not need to manage it. By speaking out about oppression, we can make its presence known, even if only gradually, and this can lead to significant change. This is evident in the Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty of the wicked, but the silence of the good” [
20].
3.3. Psychology and Behavioral Economics
Three findings from socio-scientific empirical studies may contribute to promoting social justice—the social intuitionism model, the implicit association test, and nudges. Learning about these and understanding the social science approach to social justice contributes to solving the practical challenges. Humans who have experienced COVID-19 must grow up to be more resilient against infectious diseases. The development of public health policies that consider human cognitive tendencies and the physical limitations of cognition will be a vital requirement for new infectious disease control measures that are anticipated.
Previous research on public policy or health has demonstrated that people following their moral intuitions often have nonprofitable consequences. Haidt said that most human moral judgments are driven by quick moral intuition, and we use slow post hoc moral reasoning only when necessary. This system is called the social intuitionist model [
21], and he mentions that intuitive moral judgment is unreliable. Therefore, he argues that a proper understanding of the intuitive basis for moral judgments can help decision-makers avoid errors and educators design programs to improve the quality of moral judgments and actions [
21]). Haidt suggests teaching specific skills to enable people to use moral reasoning and intuition together more effectively. An example is the reasoned judgment link, in which people may at times reason their way to a judgment by sheer force of logic, overriding their initial intuition. Additionally, the private reflection link explains how a person may spontaneously activate a new intuition that contradicts the initial intuitive judgment and use multiple competing intuitions to respond effectively to a situation.
Second, the implicit association test (IAT)—developed to explore the roots of thoughts and feelings of which we are not conscious—may contribute to social justice. The preferences revealed by IAT are based on both our preferences and what we have learned about what is considered “good” in the larger cultural world, for example, media, community, and family values [
22]. These attitudes and stereotypes can negatively impact our understanding, behavior, and decision-making and may influence a person’s unconscious discrimination. Understanding such implicit bias is essential in understanding disparities in so many aspects of society, such as health care, police, education, and organizational practices, such as hiring and promotion.
Finally, recent behavioral and socioeconomic empirical research has led Thaler and Sunstein to propose the nudge concept. Past research has shown that the rationality of many judgments and decisions that humans make is flawed [
23]. Nudge refers to interventions by seemingly trivial factors that alter decisions that would not have been made if one had been fully alert and informed [
23]. These interventions do not prohibit individual choices or significantly alter economic incentives. The nudge concept is a type of libertarian paternalism, unlike traditional paternalism, which preserves personal freedom of choice [
23]. Avoiding intervention may, therefore, be easy and inexpensive; nudge could, for example, contribute to encouraging citizens’ political participation in the interests of social justice.
3.4. Advocacy
Fostering the capacity and sentiment to advocate for the socially vulnerable is essential in social justice education. To improve advocacy skills, fostering experiences of communication with socially vulnerable people, emotional connections, and a sense of solidarity with people living in the same community is essential. To this end, creating practical opportunities for students to communicate with socially vulnerable people in the social justice education curriculum is necessary.
Socially vulnerable populations vary with each of their societies. A social justice education curriculum must include a balanced blend of global and local perspectives. From a global perspective, the issue of international disparities in well-being, or poverty, is a critical social justice issue and must not be avoided [
24]. Furthermore, if we target locally vulnerable populations—which can be a common problem in any society—racism and xenophobia, the older population, the disabled, and women and gender may be curriculum themes. Discrimination against people of color is by no means an American issue alone. Discrimination also exists within Asia. Although foreigners living in Japan are guaranteed basic rights, many experience discrimination. The older generation and people with disabilities are also typically vulnerable populations. Students need to experience firsthand how difficult it is to live in society as an elderly person or as a person with disabilities. In addition, Japan still lacks a strong understanding of LGBTQ people, and laws to protect LGBTQ populations remain inadequate due to various forms of opposition. Women, and sexual minorities in general, are socially vulnerable.