Political Protest and the Ghetto Poor...Are Some of the Poor Justified in Refusing to Work?"

Many people living in Ghettos are jobless. For some Ghetto denizens, joblessness is explained by a lack of eduction, a lack of the skills needed for available jobs, a poor transit system that makes it difficult to get to work, a criminal record or the unavailability of work (say, because of a worker surplus). Consider another explanation: a refusal to work is a form of justified political protest. Tommie Shelby argues that it is sometimes justified for ghetto denizens to refuse available work on the grounds that the structure of society is unjust toward them, their work is usually exploitative, and/or the mandates of working demean and stigmatize them (see "Justice, Work, and the Ghetto Poor"). 

This view runs contrary to the plausible claim that beneficiaries of social welfare should "give back" or contribute their "fair share." One way of motivating this claim is through considerations of reciprocity. Intuitively, if I enjoy certain crucial benefits because of the social cooperation of others, it would be unfair of me to refrain from making a contribution of my own. I would be guilty of "free riding" or taking advantage of the cooperative sacrifices of others. This gives me a pro tanto civic (if not moral) obligation to reciprocate. Likewise, since the ghetto poor benefit from the State, they have a pro tanto obligation to "give back." Call this the "Fair-Play" argument. The Fair-Play argument takes it for granted that working a job is usually the best way to discharge this obligation.

Shelby objects. Since our social scheme is unfair to the ghetto poor, it is not unfair of them to refuse work. Charges of unfairness are appropriate in this context only if the ghetto poor are members of a social scheme that is generally fair to them. Since our social scheme disadvantages the ghetto poor in a variety of ways, they are permitted to be beneficiaries of the social collective even if they are not giving back through working a job. In summary, this is the argument:

• Premise1: The benefits of our cooperative scheme are unfairly accepted by the ghetto poor who are jobless only if the scheme is fair to the ghetto poor.
• Premise2: Our cooperative scheme is not fair to the ghetto poor.
• Conclusion: The benefits of our cooperative scheme are not unfairly accepted by the ghetto poor who are jobless.