Social Justice

[Michelle420]

Interesting. Seems to poke at something significant about the concept.

Along the same lines, ordinary justice usually applies to individuals. There are clear victims and violators. But that all gets pretty vague in issues of social justice.

To promote and protect the public’s health, one example of a social violation might be to contaminate public water.

The concept of health care as a "right" definitely sees to go along with social justice, if not exactly the same thing. Contaminating water is a straight justice issue from my perspective.

The most disturbing aspect of 'social justice', in my view, is the way it promotes corporatism.

Contaminating only public fountains at a public park is a public-social issue.

A neighbor contaminating your water is an individual issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Yes.. you know of a child who is refused in public school?? You know of a doctor that will not treat a child? You know of a hospital that will not give emergency care yo a child??

You are free to access of purchase the same exact things as every other America.. what you are not guaranteed is the money to get everything you want, but the opportunity for you to do all you can to buy it yourself is there....

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Justice is justice. It doesn't require any qualifiers. whenever you add a qualifier to the term, you are referring to something other than justice. In other words, you are referring to injustice.

If you examine what the advocates of "social justice" are referring to whenever they use the term, it always involves violating the rights of 'A' for the sake of 'B.' It's a euphemism for organized plunder, and nothing more.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Not everyone has equal talent, equal effort, equal experience, equal ability, etc... While you have access to the arena, you don't inherently get to make it a close result in the contest.. you can indeed get blown out of the water, fall on your face, and fail miserably

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Social Justice = Equality of Outcome.. which of course as any sane person knows, is nonsense.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

No... I do not have a shot of winning 1 on 1 against Lebron.. I know this... and it does not bother me like it bothers progressives such as yourself...

Having the freedom to play on the court does not mean it is a shot of winning or even a close contest..

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I disagree. Government should be charged with enacting and enforcing laws and regulations that specifically address justice. Justice applied equally to all citizens is the sole purview of government. We have that guaranteed by the Constitution.
Social justice would be more an issue of demanding the laws be applied equally. This would lie in the power of the people, society, to clearly voice when they see injustice and to correct that injustice.
We see this dynamic every day. It is unfortunate that some would abdicate their personal responsibility for ensuring social justice be applied and use the force of government in order to achieve their goals. Passing a law will never change the hearts and minds of others. Using the power of government to force people to "compromise" against their wishes and wills only breeds contention and resentment.

 

[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?

Justice is justice. It doesn't require any qualifiers. whenever you add a qualifier to the term, you are referring to something other than justice. In other words, you are referring to injustice.

If you examine what the advocates of "social justice" are referring to whenever they use the term, it always involves violating the rights of 'A' for the sake of 'B.' It's a euphemism for organized plunder, and nothing more.

Well, you're making some leaps and lumping some of these things together, and I'm not sure that's justified. We can certainly talk, usefully, about other types of justice. There are definitely outcomes in society that I consider to "socially" unjust. Racism, bigotry, intolerance - the question is how we should deal with those problems. In my view, government is the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Not everyone has equal talent, equal effort, equal experience, equal ability, etc... While you have access to the arena, you don't inherently get to make it a close result in the contest.. you can indeed get blown out of the water, fall on your face, and fail miserably

Maybe the other team just ain't all that?

 

[Michelle420]

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?

Justice is justice. It doesn't require any qualifiers. whenever you add a qualifier to the term, you are referring to something other than justice. In other words, you are referring to injustice.

If you examine what the advocates of "social justice" are referring to whenever they use the term, it always involves violating the rights of 'A' for the sake of 'B.' It's a euphemism for organized plunder, and nothing more.

so·cial
/ˈsōSHəl/AdjectiveOf or relating to society or its organization

in·di·vid·u·al
/ˌindəˈvijo͞oəl/
NounA single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

In some instances a violation of the law affects the public as a group, but in other instances it does not.

In terms of social justice there would be a public issue if the law violation is towards to public as a whole which means collectively the public wants that justice addressed

It really boils down to if the violation is effecting the public or an individual.

The public will not take an individual's neighbor to court over his water being contaminated.

Hwoever, the public will collectively go to court if the public water fountains are being contaminated.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Justice is justice. It doesn't require any qualifiers. whenever you add a qualifier to the term, you are referring to something other than justice. In other words, you are referring to injustice.

If you examine what the advocates of "social justice" are referring to whenever they use the term, it always involves violating the rights of 'A' for the sake of 'B.' It's a euphemism for organized plunder, and nothing more.

Well, you're making some leaps and lumping some of these things together, and I'm not sure that's justified. We can certainly talk, usefully, about other types of justice. There are definitely outcomes in society that I consider to "socially" unjust. Racism, bigotry, intolerance - the question is how we should deal with those problems. In my view, government is the wrong tool for the job.

These are cultural issues... the people, via the legal system can certainly outlaw things like slavery, sweatshops, etc., but you can't outlaw racism, sexism, etc. If a person just in their heart, hates, let's say black people, you can't throw him in jail for it, unless of course he acts on it in some way that violates another's rights.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Not everyone has equal talent, equal effort, equal experience, equal ability, etc... While you have access to the arena, you don't inherently get to make it a close result in the contest.. you can indeed get blown out of the water, fall on your face, and fail miserably

Maybe the other team just ain't all that?

Bingo

 

[gallantwarrior]

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 fully agree. I perceive the term "social justice" as often applied by liberals/progressives to mean that everyone should have an equal outcome. Hence the demand that even losers get their share of the winnings. Equal opportunity has always been a hallmark of American society but I see increasing use of government force to "level the playing field", "call the shots", etc. There is NO justice when government takes what one citizen has earned or built in order to give it to someone who has not earned it. So, in one sense, "social justice" is exclusive of true, equal justice for all.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you think justice is a result and not an action, then you are already going down the wrong road. Massive slums are normally the result of corrupt government, which means injustice on a vast scale. However, the simple fact that 'A' has more than 'B' doesn't imply that any injustice has occured, but that seems to be what you are implying.

 

[bripat9643]

You just proved my point that so-called "social justice" is a euphemism for organized plunder. It invariably involves taking from 'A' for the benefit of 'B.'

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.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Interesting. Seems to poke at something significant about the concept.

Along the same lines, ordinary justice usually applies to individuals. There are clear victims and violators. But that all gets pretty vague in issues of social justice.

To promote and protect the public’s health, one example of a social violation might be to contaminate public water.

The concept of health care as a "right" definitely sees to go along with social justice, if not exactly the same thing. Contaminating water is a straight justice issue from my perspective.

The most disturbing aspect of 'social justice', in my view, is the way it promotes corporatism.

How does "social justice" promote corporatism?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

All children will never have equal access to healthcare and education. If your father is a rocket scientist, you are going to get a lot better education than a kid whose father is a janitor. It's impossible to right all the wrongs of fortune and biology. Any attempt to do so only generates further injustice.

However, so long as some people do better in life than others, demagogues like you will be babbling about "social justice" and how the government should do something to enforce it.

 

[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.

If you think justice is a result and not an action, then you are already going down the wrong road. Massive slums are normally the result of corrupt government, which means injustice on a vast scale. However, the simple fact that 'A' has more than 'B' doesn't imply that any injustice has occured, but that seems to be what you are implying.

Not at all. I'm just saying that there are outcomes in society that, even though they might not violate anyone's rights, really suck. And I can certainly understand wanting to do something about that. The question is, should we bring the law to bear on the problem? I think it's a really bad idea, for many reasons.

But I don't think it's valid to write off the social justice movement as inherently malignant. Much good has been done in its name.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Yeah, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are still walking around free.

 

[bripat9643]

most of the descriptions attached to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs—“high unemployment” or “inequality of incomes” or “lack of a living wage” are cited as instances of “social injustice.” Hayek goes to the heart of the matter: social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Most who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use “social justice” to denote a regulative principle of order; again, their focus is not virtue but power.

“social justice rightly understood” is that it aims at the good of the city, not at the good of one agent only. Citizens may band together, as in pioneer days, to put up a school or build a bridge. They may get together in the modern city to hold a bake sale for some charitable cause, to repair a playground, to clean up the environment, or for a million other purposes that their social imaginations might lead them to. Hence the second sense in which this habit of justice is “social”: its object, as well as its form, primarily involves the good of others.

None of the activities in any of the above scenarios has to do with justice.