Can it reasonably be said that distributive justice "outweighs" commutative justice (in that it corresponds to a higher level of importance, weight, influence, or authority)? It was denied.
On the contrary, Fr. Joseph Rickabay, S.J., a renowned 19th century classical Thomist from England, wrote in 1888, explaining Thomistic philosophical teaching on justice: “Distributive justice is the virtue of the king, and of the statesman, of the commander-in-chief, of the judge, and of the public functionary generally…[and] Distributive justice is the Justice that we adore in the great Governor of the Universe, saying that He is “just in all His works” (Moral Philosophy, 1914 edition, pp. 104-105).
Yet, commutative justice is the virtue of the private individual, the common citizen, in dealing with one another, something we at most would venerate (not adore) in each other on the horizontal level between two equal people. The individual has created value, but has less status than those in higher authority, i.e. higher status, especially God Himself with infinite value. It follows then that Distributive justice pertains to a higher authority or level of importance, because it originates ultimately from God who we adore as Governor, downward on the vertical scale, to those in authority over us (kings, judges, etc), who represent God, to those at the most basic, common level of the social hierarchy. To repeat, "Distributive justice is the Justice that we adore in the great Governor of the Universe."
Regarding legal justice, it is that general form of justice that directs the individual to the common good, where we must obey the law (Question 58, Article 5). It is public, and follows a strict adherence to the law/government. St. Thomas says “It follows therefore that the good of any virtue, whether such virtue direct man in relation to himself, or in relation to certain other individual persons, is referable to the common good, to which justice directs: so that all acts of virtue can pertain to justice, in so far as it directs man to the common good. It is in this sense that justice is called a general virtue.” But as was quoted earlier, all particulars are ordered to the common good as the end, so that both commutative and distributive justice, just as with legal justice, are ordered to the common good.
However, the common good is at a higher level on the social hierarchy than the private good. The private good, provided by commutative justice, is ordered upward, to a higher end--the common good, which is distributed as such to each person, not as a private good (like food or shelter), but as something higher (ex's: public order, education, community life). Since justice always involves persons, and persons are made for the common good, and since distributive justice also provides for the common good for all persons (from Society itself distributed to the individual), it logically follows that distributive justice outweighs commutative justice in so far as it participates in the common good, whereas commutative justice provides more so for private goods.
Therefore, in conclusion, distributive justice, though perhaps of less weight or authority than legal justice, can be reasonably be said, at least in the sense I have articulated, to have more weight, importance, or authority than commutative justice since it is more directly involved with the common good.
--------------------------------
As an aside, and this is not part of my argument itself, I think James and I might be more in agreement than disagreement. From St. Thomas’ view that society is a hierarchy, of which James and I both agree (point #1), and from St. Thomas’ writings on justice, rights, the good, and the ideal government, it comes down to how you view/read the flow or interchange between the three justices. The way I visualize it, based on St. Thomas' teachings, two private people at the bottom of the hierarchy exchange private goods, via commutative justice, but that indirectly directs man upward because he needs more, those goods not provided by the family or household alone (education, market place, law and order, public community life, etc.), which every citizen must aim at through obeying the law (legal justice), but in turn every government and society must distribute proportionately to everyone the common good.
When each individual receives the common good from society, which they have a right to, by means of distributive justice, then they are able to function at a higher social/moral level than when one individual receives a private good from a second individual.
If you apply this to the original dispute between me and James, in which he claimed the family is “the highest hierarchical level,” it is true the family is prior to society in terms of chronological order and development of a society from individual families, yet society itself is prior to the family ontologically, morally, and metaphysically. The family is not self-sufficient to provide for itself the "common good" for personal perfection, which society itself provides to each member of the family through distributive justice at a higher level.
