Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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. The OP is correct in pointing out much of the good done in its name.
Ordinary Justice : an individual's rights have been violated
Social Justice: the publics rights have been violated
JFK in speaking about the economy once said.......A rising tide lifts all boats
Since the Reagan policies were enacted thirty years ago, The rising tide only lifts the yachts
most of the descriptions attached to it appertain to impersonal states of affairshigh 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.
social justice rightly understood is that it aims at the good of the city
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.
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.
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. .
That may be the case, but the fact has nothing to do with justice. People can form charitable organizations to ameliorate such conditions, but the minute the government mandates some particular solution, it necessarily assaults the rights of a given group of people.
[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.
Such as?
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.
What you're really saying is that it depends on whether an individual is the injured party or the government is the injured party. However, the govenrment can only be in a position to be injured if it has already vaiolated the rights of indivuals. For instance, if someone pollutes a "public" stream, they have indjured the government because public ownership in reality always means government ownership. If government wasn't in the business of owning streams, then such "injustices" would never occur. Government userped the just social order when it arrogated to itself the right to own streams rather than allocating such property to private individuals.
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.
What you're really saying is that it depends on whether an individual is the injured party or the government is the injured party. However, the govenrment can only be in a position to be injured if it has already vaiolated the rights of indivuals. For instance, if someone pollutes a "public" stream, they have indjured the government because public ownership in reality always means government ownership. If government wasn't in the business of owning streams, then such "injustices" would never occur. Government userped the just social order when it arrogated to itself the right to own streams rather than allocating such property to private individuals.
What I am saying is social justice is defined in that it effects more then one party.
Social issues are issues a group experiences together.
If a group is seeking justice on a social issue the end result may be determined that the issue does not fall under a social injustice or maybe it does.
But social issues and social justice are two different things.
If the public is getting ill over contaminated water it becomes a social issue and if they seek for the government to clean it up and it's refused they may take it to court seeking social justice.
JFK was a Tax Cutting President.....RW just doesn't want to look at that.
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?
JFK was a Tax Cutting President.....RW just doesn't want to look at that.
I'm willing to go back to JFKs rates
Are you?
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?
Ordinary justice is justice that is rendered by law, which,in many cases, is not just at all. For example, many states allow convicted rapists parential visiting rights to the child thus created.
Social justice would never permit such a thing.
However, without the law, we have anarchy, so we are stuck with ordinary justice.
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?
Ok.. Let me see....
Social Justice...
An attempt by society to correct the results of actions which were not illegal, yet had a perceived negative affect on people.
Social Justice requires that "The Rich" a general term not throughly defined, to pay into the tax system a much greater percentage of their income than anyone else. "The poor", again a term not throughly defined, are required to pay nothing and often times get money from the Government in a Reversed Tax format.
Social Justice, wihile proclaiming that everyone is "Equal" demands that women and non-whites are treated with special laws and protections that males and Whites do not get.
Social Justice is used to give those who broke immigration laws the chance to stay here because they managed to have a child born here.
Social Justice is used to demand that those who were brought here illegally while children, are given all the advantages of those who were born here.
Social Justice is used as an excuse to increase taxes on those few still paying taxes to improve the lives of those who do not work yet still have Flat Screen TV's and cell phones that the tax payer can not afford to have.
Social Justice, wihile proclaiming that everyone is "Equal" demands that women and non-whites are treated with special laws and protections that males and Whites do not get.
Social Justice, wihile proclaiming that everyone is "Equal" demands that women and non-whites are treated with special laws and protections that males and Whites do not get.
It does make me laugh that posters who are probably old enough to remember the Freedom Buses and lynchings seem to think white men need protection from non-whites.
