Can a Just Society Compel Compassion?

Jimmy Skinner

June 13, 2025

Introduction

The question of whether healthcare or any service can be considered a “right” strikes at the core of modern political and moral debates. When people say something like healthcare is a “human right,” they often mean it’s something everyone should have access to. But is it an inherent right—or a government-created promise that requires someone else’s labor? Can we guarantee access to services without compromising liberty?

This exploration unfolds through a series of deeper questions: the distinction between inherent and civil rights, the nature of positive versus negative rights, the role of government, and what it truly means to live in a just society.

Inherent Rights vs. Civil Rights

Inherent rights (also called natural rights) are freedoms you possess simply by being human—like life, liberty, and property.
Civil rights are legal protections created and enforced by governments, often to ensure that inherent rights aren’t violated (e.g., anti-discrimination laws).

Key Tension:

If people already have inherent rights, why do we need civil rights? Because rights can be ignored or violated. Civil rights attempt to reinforce and protect what should already be respected.

However, when civil rights extend into guaranteeing specific outcomes or services (like housing, education, or healthcare), we enter murkier territory.

Negative vs. Positive Rights

Negative rights: Protect you from interference (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom from theft).
Positive rights: Require others to provide you with something (e.g., education, healthcare, housing).

The Philosophical Divide:

Viewpoint	Liberty-Oriented	Equity-Oriented
Definition of Justice	Freedom from coercion	Fair access to outcomes
Moral Responsibility	Do no harm	Do good when able
Role of Government	Protector of rights	Provider of rights
Healthcare	A service, not a right	A right that enables dignity

Liberty Viewpoint: Guaranteeing a service like healthcare requires compelling others to provide it or fund it. This violates their autonomy and negative rights. If someone is forced to act, even for a good cause, it’s a kind of coercion.

Equity Viewpoint: When people suffer because of lack of access to basic needs, society is failing. Injustice includes what we fail to do, not just what we do wrong.

The Slippery Slope of Positive Rights

When suffering is reframed as injustice, the moral logic quickly escalates:

If you can help but don’t, you’re morally guilty.
If you have more than others, you’re morally obligated to share.
If government can mandate this sharing, it should.

But this has major problems:

Undermines consent — Turning virtue into obligation kills the moral meaning of generosity.
No limits — What isn’t a right? Food, internet, companionship?
Erases responsibility boundaries — You owe people because they exist, not because you harmed them.
Mislabels suffering as harm — Calling poverty an injustice assumes someone has done wrong. But not all suffering is caused by a wrong—sometimes it’s just part of the human condition.

This distinction matters: not every misfortune is a moral failure. Conflating suffering with injustice turns tragedy into blame, which distorts both compassion and accountability.

And importantly, no political framework—whether equity-driven or liberty-oriented—can eliminate suffering entirely. The human condition includes tragedy, limitation, and imperfection. Justice can guide our structures, but it cannot promise utopia.

⚖️ Classical vs. Social Justice: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Concept	Classical Justice (Liberty-Oriented)	Social Justice (Equity-Oriented)
Injustice =	Violation of natural/negative rights	Any preventable harm due to unequal systems
Poor health or poverty is…	Unfortunate but not unjust	A result of systemic failure (thus unjust)
Moral responsibility	Do no harm; don’t coerce	Actively correct inequity
Aid to others is…	Charity, not obligation	A moral (or even legal) duty

Why Government Should Protect Liberty, but Christians Should Go Further

From a biblical perspective, justice begins with do no harm—the ethic at the heart of the Ten Commandments. These laws didn’t command acts of charity; they prohibited theft, murder, false witness, and coveting. That’s the foundation of negative rights: protect others by refusing to violate them.

But Christianity doesn’t stop there. Jesus calls his followers to a higher moral standard: not just to avoid harm but to actively do good. The teachings of Christ—loving your neighbor, caring for the poor, giving generously, turning the other cheek—are rooted in voluntary goodness, not legal obligation. These are fruits of the Spirit, evidence of a transformed heart.

In fact, the very core of the gospel highlights that humans can’t perfectly do good. The law shows us our need, and Christ fulfills it. Jesus’ atonement is necessary precisely because no one is righteous on their own—not even those trying to do good through public systems. The Christian call to mercy is grounded in grace, not guilt.

Christians, then, should not demand that government force these virtues on others. Instead, they should model them. The Church’s witness is strongest when Christians choose to care, give, and serve freely—not because law demands it, but because love compels it.

Let government protect freedom. Let the Church embody compassion.

Why It’s Hard to Show Grace in a Digital Age

One reason it’s increasingly difficult to live out this vision of voluntary compassion is the way our culture is shaped by digital platforms. Social media feeds on guilt. It overwhelms us by over-connecting us to every problem in the world—every injustice, every crisis, every heartbreaking story.

We aren’t wired to carry the emotional weight of the whole globe. But online, we’re constantly told that if we don’t speak out, donate, or act immediately, we’re complicit in someone else’s pain. The pressure is relentless.

Grace requires space for reflection, rest, and boundaries.
Social media exploits urgency, outrage, and shame.

In this environment, guilt often replaces grace, and moral fatigue sets in. What should be an invitation to do good becomes a crushing burden. That’s why the Church must model a different rhythm of life—one that centers on grace, not guilt; calling, not coercion.

Final Thought

Whatever your spiritual or political background, we all wrestle with the tension between personal freedom and collective responsibility. A just society doesn’t need to erase that tension — but it does need people willing to wrestle with it honestly.

If we want compassion to flourish, it can’t be coerced. It must be cultivated.

📌 Step 7: Give directly and impactfully.
You don’t have to wait for legislation to change hearts. The most powerful resistance to apathy is action — especially personal, intentional generosity. That’s why Step 7 isn’t just about charity; it’s about freedom.

The earlier steps in the journey to financial freedom exist for a reason: so that by the time you get to Step 7, you’re not just surviving — you’re equipped to give boldly.

Whether you’re motivated by faith, ethics, or simply human empathy, you can start shaping a more just society through what you choose to do — and give — today.

Appendix: Definitions and Frameworks

1. Inherent (Natural) Rights
Rights you have simply by being human. Often listed as life, liberty, and property (Locke); or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson).

2. Civil Rights
Legal rights created to protect individuals within a society—e.g., the right to vote, right to equal treatment under law, anti-discrimination protections.

3. Negative Rights
The right to be left alone or free from interference. Examples: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy.

4. Positive Rights
Rights that require others (often the government) to provide something. Examples: right to healthcare, housing, or education.

Biblical References

Exodus 20 – The Ten Commandments (“Do no harm” moral baseline)
Luke 10:25–37 – The Good Samaritan (voluntary compassion)
Matthew 5–7 – Sermon on the Mount (calling to active good, not enforced)
2 Corinthians 9:7 – “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart… for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Romans 3:23–24 – “All have sinned and fall short… and are justified by his grace.”