Social Justice

[dblack]

From my understanding, one of the distinguishing priorities of modern liberal/progressives is the desire to pursue "social justice" as a policy goal of government. In another thread, it was suggested that this term has been polluted by propagandists. I wasn't really aware that there was any dispute as to it's meaning, but the issue seems worthy of it's own thread.

So, what is social justice? How does it differ from ordinary justice? Is it something we should work toward as a society? Is it something for which government should be responsible?

 

[blastoff]

Social justice? Must be lefty code-speak for taxing something. Or taking something away we all take for granted. Like rights and stuff.

 

[Antares]

The only dispute comes from those that don't actually know what a progressive is.

A Liberal is not a "progressive" in the true sense of the word.

"Progressives" live and breathe in he belief that ONLY a Centrally planned society can ever truly be "fair".

 

[dblack]

I'd really rather avoid the left/right nonsense in this thread, and focus merely on the concepts involved. In particular, I'm interested in the perceived differences between social justice and ordinary justice. If there is no substantive difference, why do we bother with different terms?

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd really rather avoid the left/right nonsense in this thread, and focus merely on the concepts involved. In particular, I'm interested in the perceived differences between social justice and ordinary justice. If there is no substantive difference, why do we bother with different terms?

We bother because our species uses words to communicate ideas. That does not mean the words do this effectively. What one person sees as justice may be completely different than what another person sees as justice.

For me it really becomes a question of what kind of society do we wish to have. Do we consider massive slums filled with underfed and disease ridden citizens with little or no hope of getting out as acceptable? That would certainly meet the definition of social justice for some, though not for others. So rather than deal with it as a question of justice, I would ask whether that is healthy for the society as a whole and I would offer that it is not.

 

[dblack]

I'd really rather avoid the left/right nonsense in this thread, and focus merely on the concepts involved. In particular, I'm interested in the perceived differences between social justice and ordinary justice. If there is no substantive difference, why do we bother with different terms?

We bother because our species uses words to communicate ideas. That does not mean the words do this effectively. What one person sees as justice may be completely different than what another person sees as justice.

For me it really becomes a question of what kind of society do we wish to have. Do we consider massive slums filled with underfed and disease ridden citizens with little or no hope of getting out as acceptable? That would certainly meet the definition of social justice for some, though not for others. So rather than deal with it as a question of justice, I would ask whether that is healthy for the society as a whole and I would offer that it is not.

Alright. But I'd like to get some clarity on the term. Simply switching to another topic doesn't really help.

 

[Saigon]

This is a very good thread idea - although I see it is already being smeared with the usual partisan cliches.

Firstly, although it is not the role of government to pursue social justice per se, there can not be social justice without government support.

Social justice is different from ordinary justice, in that it is not about laws and courts. Social justice is, to my mind, a way of saying that people should get a fair deal in everything they do.

For instance - that all kids should get a fair shot at a good education, and not have richer children receiving a better education than the kids born down the street.

Likewise, everyone should be able to see a doctor when they need one. That is a key element of social justice.

So laws and legislation need to support these imperatives, but more so I think it is about the culture; that people live in an environment where justice and freedoms are respected and valued.

I don't see this as a left/right issue, although of course it is fair to say that the left highlights the legislating of these principles more than the right does; who tend to allow it to occur by market conditions alone.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

 

[Redfish]

This is a very good thread idea - although I see it is already being smeared with the usual partisan cliches.

Firstly, although it is not the role of government to pursue social justice per se, there can not be social justice without government support.

Social justice is different from ordinary justice, in that it is not about laws and courts. Social justice is, to my mind, a way of saying that people should get a fair deal in everything they do.

For instance - that all kids should get a fair shot at a good education, and not have richer children receiving a better education than the kids born down the street.

Likewise, everyone should be able to see a doctor when they need one. That is a key element of social justice.

So laws and legislation need to support these imperatives, but more so I think it is about the culture; that people live in an environment where justice and freedoms are respected and valued.

I don't see this as a left/right issue, although of course it is fair to say that the left highlights the legislating of these principles more than the right does; who tend to allow it to occur by market conditions alone.

We already have social justice in this country. The constitution guarantees it. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but today no one is denied the american dream if he or she is willing to work for it---and thats the key-----work for it----not get it handed to them.

Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results. Thats the part that liberal progressives don't get.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd really rather avoid the left/right nonsense in this thread, and focus merely on the concepts involved. In particular, I'm interested in the perceived differences between social justice and ordinary justice. If there is no substantive difference, why do we bother with different terms?

We bother because our species uses words to communicate ideas. That does not mean the words do this effectively. What one person sees as justice may be completely different than what another person sees as justice.

For me it really becomes a question of what kind of society do we wish to have. Do we consider massive slums filled with underfed and disease ridden citizens with little or no hope of getting out as acceptable? That would certainly meet the definition of social justice for some, though not for others. So rather than deal with it as a question of justice, I would ask whether that is healthy for the society as a whole and I would offer that it is not.

Alright. But I'd like to get some clarity on the term. Simply switching to another topic doesn't really help.

I didn't think I was switching topics. You are asking for clarity on a term which is itself entirely subjective. I suppose you could say the difference between social justice and ordinary justice is that latter deals with the application of law and the former is about how we treat each other. Both, however, are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Redfish]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

bullshit---Madoff is in jail, OJ is in jail, Rostenkowski went to jail, Ken Lay would be in jail if he was still alive.

Get over your jealousy of successful people and get your ass to work improving your station in life-------or you can sit on your lazy ass and wati for obozo to give you some free shit.,

 

[Saigon]

We already have social justice in this country. The constitution guarantees it. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but today no one is denied the american dream if he or she is willing to work for it---and thats the key-----work for it----not get it handed to them.

So all children in th US have equal access to healthcare and education?

Interesting.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

bullshit---Madoff is in jail, OJ is in jail, Rostenkowski went to jail, Ken Lay would be in jail if he was still alive.

Get over your jealousy of successful people and get your ass to work improving your station in life-------or you can sit on your lazy ass and wati for obozo to give you some free shit.,

Of those who threw Wall Street and the global economy into a crash......How many are in jail? (hint: none)

More evidence of a lack of referees

 

[dblack]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

Agreed. But to extend the metaphor a bit, I might characterize the difference between justice and social justice as the difference between making sure everyone follows the rules of the game, and an intra-league revenue sharing program - aimed at ensuring the everyone gets their share of winning.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

Agreed. But to extend the metaphor a bit, I might characterize the difference between justice and social justice as the difference between making sure everyone follows the rules of the game, and an intra-league revenue sharing program - aimed at ensuring the everyone gets their share of winning.

I do not believe anyone is trying to play Robin Hood and confiscate the wealth of the rich and distribute to the poor. What government has to do is look at the rules of the game and figure out why one team is scoring at will while the other team can't get off a shot.

If the rules of the game need to be adjusted, so be it

 

[PratchettFan]

This is a very good thread idea - although I see it is already being smeared with the usual partisan cliches.

Firstly, although it is not the role of government to pursue social justice per se, there can not be social justice without government support.

Social justice is different from ordinary justice, in that it is not about laws and courts. Social justice is, to my mind, a way of saying that people should get a fair deal in everything they do.

For instance - that all kids should get a fair shot at a good education, and not have richer children receiving a better education than the kids born down the street.

Likewise, everyone should be able to see a doctor when they need one. That is a key element of social justice.

So laws and legislation need to support these imperatives, but more so I think it is about the culture; that people live in an environment where justice and freedoms are respected and valued.

I don't see this as a left/right issue, although of course it is fair to say that the left highlights the legislating of these principles more than the right does; who tend to allow it to occur by market conditions alone.

We already have social justice in this country. The constitution guarantees it. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but today no one is denied the american dream if he or she is willing to work for it---and thats the key-----work for it----not get it handed to them.

Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results. Thats the part that liberal progressives don't get.

I totally agree. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results, and it shouldn't. There should be no guarantee of success. There are people who would see social justice as meaning there is such a guarantee, but they are wrong. Which goes to my point that the term really has no meaning because it is entirely subjective.

There is a photo of a lynching in a midwest town. I won't post it here, but it is easy enough to find. Two men hanging while the towns people smile for the camera. I can guarantee the people on the ground thought what was happening was justice. I doubt the two men agreed, or their families.

Which is why I prefer to deal with these issues not from basis of a subjective concept but strictly from the point of view how we want our society to be. That success is not guaranteed is a given for me, but do we wish for failure to mean starvation? Do we want shantytowns? Do we want cholera epidemics? Because the reality is that while success is not guaranteed for the individual, it is guaranteed that there will be failure. There will always be losers in the game and the question is how do we treat the losers.

 

[dblack]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

Agreed. But to extend the metaphor a bit, I might characterize the difference between justice and social justice as the difference between making sure everyone follows the rules of the game, and an intra-league revenue sharing program - aimed at ensuring the everyone gets their share of winning.

I do not believe anyone is trying to play Robin Hood and confiscate the wealth of the rich and distribute to the poor. What government has to do is look at the rules of the game and figure out why one team is scoring at will while the other team can't get off a shot.

Is the assumption, in this example, that there is some 'unfair' reason why one team wins all the time? Something beside them just being better at the game?

If the rules of the game need to be adjusted, so be it

Under what circumstances would they need to be adjusted?

 

[PratchettFan]

I'll give it a shot...

I look at the role of the government not to ensure that everybody wins but to act like a basketball referee and ensure that it is a fair game

One side may win and the other side may lose but a referee has to be sure that he is calling the game so that each team has a chance to score. If you call fouls on one side but allow them on the other, you end up with a lopsided score

That is our current problem. Nobody is calling fouls on the upper class and they are being allowed to run up the economic score

Agreed. But to extend the metaphor a bit, I might characterize the difference between justice and social justice as the difference between making sure everyone follows the rules of the game, and an intra-league revenue sharing program - aimed at ensuring the everyone gets their share of winning.

I would disagree. I don't think anyone is entitled to their share of winning. If you didn't win, you don't have a share. How do you even go about deciding what a share is?

 

[Saigon]

Is the assumption, in this example, that there is some 'unfair' reason why one team wins all the time? Something beside them just being better at the game?

Well, when you walk in the court, you expect to have a shot of winning, right?

In the scenario Rightwinger explains, the ref only calls fouls against one team.

 

[Bill Angel]

Ordinary Justice is Blind (and has nice hips)

Social Justice is Not Blind (and has nice breasts)