Someone want to explain "Social Justice" to me?

[cjh]

Let's go at it from a different angle.

If the phrase 'social justice' does NOT have a single, almost universally, agreed upon meaning, then it has NO meaning at all. Just a pair of words thrown out that have the virtue of sounding good, but in the end are meaningless in any context of an overwhelming public understanding of the word.

"I'm for Social Justice, you know what I mean?" Well no, I don't have a fucking clue what you mean. And if you can't definitively define the term, then you don't know what in the fuck you mean either. And if there is NO agreed upon meaning for the phrase then the very act of using it makes you look like a fool.

Ishmael

Equity has no definitive meaning.

Nor does fair.

Regardless, most people have an innate sense of what is fair and what is equitable.

By design, they are flexible. Life does not always fit within definitions.

 

[Adre]

Let's go at it from a different angle.

If the phrase 'social justice' does NOT have a single, almost universally, agreed upon meaning, then it has NO meaning at all. Just a pair of words thrown out that have the virtue of sounding good, but in the end are meaningless in any context of an overwhelming public understanding of the word.

"I'm for Social Justice, you know what I mean?" Well no, I don't have a fucking clue what you mean. And if you can't definitively define the term, then you don't know what in the fuck you mean either. And if there is NO agreed upon meaning for the phrase then the very act of using it makes you look like a fool.

Ishmael

I predicted your final answer three hours ago. How did I know?

 

[mercury14]

Let's go at it from a different angle.

If the phrase 'social justice' does NOT have a single, almost universally, agreed upon meaning, then it has NO meaning at all. Just a pair of words thrown out that have the virtue of sounding good, but in the end are meaningless in any context of an overwhelming public understanding of the word.

"I'm for Social Justice, you know what I mean?" Well no, I don't have a fucking clue what you mean. And if you can't definitively define the term, then you don't know what in the fuck you mean either. And if there is NO agreed upon meaning for the phrase then the very act of using it makes you look like a fool.

Ishmael

No it meanz socialism!

Actually the sane people here agree with you. And the relativists will even take it a step further and say that not only is there no agreed upon definition but that there cannot be a definition since there are no inherent things such as rights, morals, or values.

 

[chillywilly2]

Let's go at it from a different angle.

If the phrase 'social justice' does NOT have a single, almost universally, agreed upon meaning, then it has NO meaning at all. Just a pair of words thrown out that have the virtue of sounding good, but in the end are meaningless in any context of an overwhelming public understanding of the word.

"I'm for Social Justice, you know what I mean?" Well no, I don't have a fucking clue what you mean. And if you can't definitively define the term, then you don't know what in the fuck you mean either. And if there is NO agreed upon meaning for the phrase then the very act of using it makes you look like a fool.

Ishmael

Pretty much what I said

"Social Justice" is an egalitarian way of viewing and/or running society.

It calls upon the well-founded and legally recognized principals of Natural Justice and the Law of Equity to ease or level the playing field created in capitalist societies and free-market economies.

To pure Capitalists, social justice smacks of Socialism.

But the underlying theme is that everyone deserves a fair shake, to have the basic necessities of life, etc...and that's not a bad thing.

Example: The perversion of an American Teenager paying $200 for a pair of Air Jordan sneakers while the teens who sew them live without access to clean water, nutrition, education (for example) is the sort of thing "Social Justice" seeks to address.

This has a definite Canadian perspective to it and while being a good perspective is worthless in this forum because it does not incite an argument or name calling

 

[julybaby04]

Perhaps the definition of Social Justice depends on one's place in their life at this moment. While one person may see their situation as just fine and have no issues, another may see their situation as needing improvement.

The one who would like to improve their situation may wish to see other's stepping in to help them. The one without the desire to change may not see a need at all.

It is all very relative and therefore, as has been mentioned before on here, the definition will not be the same for everyone. Therefore the urgency to have social justice may be very one sided.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Nope that's not it.

So "social justice" is not fair?

 

[PoppingTom]

So "social justice" is not fair?

It's not about fairness. Just like taxes are not about fairness.

 

[PoppingTom]

Perhaps the definition of Social Justice depends on one's place in their life at this moment. While one person may see their situation as just fine and have no issues, another may see their situation as needing improvement.

The one who would like to improve their situation may wish to see other's stepping in to help them. The one without the desire to change may not see a need at all.

It is all very relative and therefore, as has been mentioned before on here, the definition will not be the same for everyone. Therefore the urgency to have social justice may be very one sided.

You're talking about single persons and their view of their own life.

We talk about society.

 

[julybaby04]

You're talking about single persons and their view of their own life.

We talk about society.

People make up society. Their own personal views will make up a collective view of which ever particular side their view falls on....

....it all starts with an individual and that person's own view.

 

[PoppingTom]

People make up society.

That's right, but the government, no matter if you like it or have one, makes the society you're live in, too.

Their own personal views will make up a collective view of which ever particular side their view falls on....

....it all starts with an individual and that person's own view.

No, it starts with being part of it.

You are not part of any society because you think like them. You are, because the society makes you a part of it.

And everybody who is born in the US of A, is a part of your society, no matter if he wanted it or not.

 

[julybaby04]

That's right, but the government, no matter if you like it or have one, makes the society you're live in, too.



No, it starts with being part of it.

You are not part of any society because you think like them. You are, because the society makes you a part of it.

And everybody who is born in the US of A, is a part of your society, no matter if he wanted it or not.

Agreed.....

I don't think that is the issue.....everyone is a part of whichever society they either choose to live in or are born there and never leave.

My point was that "social justice" starts with each person in that societies personal view and that makes up a collective view. Same as with most everything else, there are two sides....each made of a collective of individual, personal views.

What is social justice to one may not be to another.....that was my point.

 

[PoppingTom]

My point was that "social justice" starts with each person in that societies personal view and that makes up a collective view. Same as with most everything else, there are two sides....each made of a collective of individual, personal views.

What is social justice to one may not be to another.....that was my point.

I understand what you mean, but every society follows principles, and if you're part of any society, you have to follow them principles, no matter if you like them or not. In a free, open and democratic society, you can change those principles, if you got enough people on your side. And everybody has to follow them, whether they like it or not. That's how society works.

A good society keeps its social justice high, to be called a good society. And to be a save place. More social injustice, more turmoil. Call the poor just envious, but you always have to fear people who got nothing to lose.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Try to keep it brief.

Ishmael

Wikipedia:

Social justice is defined as justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society.

A socially just society is defined by its advocates and practioneers as being based on the principles of equality and solidarity; this pedagogy also maintains that the socially just society both understands and values human rights, as well as recognizing the dignity of every human being.[1][2] The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice."[3] Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[4]

The term and modern concept of "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][5][6][7] The word has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants' Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.

<snip>

John Rawls

Political philosopher John Rawls draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of John Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant. His first statement of principle was made in A Theory of Justice where he proposed that, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.".[19] A deontological proposition that echoes Kant in framing the moral good of justice in absolutist terms. His views are definitively restated in Political Liberalism where society is seen "as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one generation to the next.".[20]

All societies have a basic structure of social, economic, and political institutions, both formal and informal. In testing how well these elements fit and work together, Rawls based a key test of legitimacy on the theories of social contract. To determine whether any particular system of collectively enforced social arrangements is legitimate, he argued that one must look for agreement by the people who are subject to it, but not necessarily to an objective notion of justice based on coherent ideological grounding. Obviously, not every citizen can be asked to participate in a poll to determine his or her consent to every proposal in which some degree of coercion is involved, so one has to assume that all citizens are reasonable. Rawls constructed an argument for a two-stage process to determine a citizen's hypothetical agreement:

* The citizen agrees to be represented by X for certain purposes, and, to that extent, X holds these powers as a trustee for the citizen.

* X agrees that enforcement in a particular social context is legitimate. The citizen, therefore, is bound by this decision because it is the function of the trustee to represent the citizen in this way.

This applies to one person who represents a small group (e.g., the organiser of a social event setting a dress code) as equally as it does to national governments, which are ultimate trustees, holding representative powers for the benefit of all citizens within their territorial boundaries. Governments that fail to provide for welfare of their citizens according to the principles of justice are not legitimate. To emphasise the general principle that justice should rise from the people and not be dictated by the law-making powers of governments, Rawls asserted that, "There is ... a general presumption against imposing legal and other restrictions on conduct without sufficient reason. But this presumption creates no special priority for any particular liberty."[21] This is support for an unranked set of liberties that reasonable citizens in all states should respect and uphold — to some extent, the list proposed by Rawls matches the normative human rights that have international recognition and direct enforcement in some nation states where the citizens need encouragement to act in a way that fixes a greater degree of equality of outcome.

The basic liberties according to Rawls
* Freedom of thought;
* Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
* Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
* Freedom of association;
* Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation); and
* Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

RationalWiki:

Social justice is an historically Christian concept initially formulated as part of the reaction by the Roman Catholic Church against the liberal socio-political reforms in 19th-century Europe.

History

As first expounded by the Roman Catholics, it was an application of Christian moral ideas to the social problems of the day. The Catholics argued that neither liberalism nor communism had any proper moral foundation and were thus undermining the social fabric. Liberalism was criticized for giving rise to too much interpersonal competition, communism for "setting brother against brother" by preaching "class struggle." A social order based on Christian morals was suggested as an alternative, involving the recognition of rights and duties for both workers and business owners, a living wage for workers, care for the poor, and, of course, a continued large role for the Catholic Church.

The same sort of ideas were taken up by Protestants in modified form; particularly subscribing to them were the evangelicals of the day, such as the Methodists, who believed that if Christians would knock it off with all the sin, a Golden Age would come about. This formulation became soundly post-millennial (thus anticipating the eschatology of the Dominionists) and eventually became known as the Social Gospel; among the policies of this movement were compulsory public education, aggressive inculcation of "good morals" in the young, and prohibition of liquor.

The Social Gospel reached its peak in the early 20th century and from that point increasingly secularized until it had very little to distinguish it from other forms of socialism, with the exception that Social Gospel promoters occasionally tack a "God is" in front of the usual talking points, or a "because that's what Jesus said" behind them. This lends them a holier-than-thou ring, not altogether dissimilar to what the religious right did with Ronald Reagan's economic policies, except that the Social Gospel promoters do not usually take such an hysterical tone, since Jesus actually did say many of the things in question.

In the early 20th century, the idea of social justice was taken up very visibly by Rev. Charles Coughlin, the noted Nazi sympathizer and "radio priest," who favored populist and distributist economic policies and opposed communism, airing his views in a periodical entitled Social Justice. After World War II, the traditional Catholic formulation of social justice came to be associated with fascism, particularly with the "clerical fascism" of such nations as Engelbert Dollfuss's Austria, Francisco Franco's Spain and António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal. As a result, this formulation became somewhat discredited in mainstream political thought.

More recently, the Catholic ideas have been worked over into the Catholic variant of Marxism, liberation theology, which intensifies the criticisms of capitalism and mutes the criticisms of communism.

"Social justice" is one of those warm-and-fuzzy terms, like "family values," that people are loath to criticize. Hence, in the present day the term is heavily employed as a political buzzword, so that it is sometimes rather difficult to determine what someone actually means when they say it.

Criticism

Social justice is much criticized as a religious notion with no basis in reality. Even from the religious standpoint, the Christians who treat poverty as a "social injustice" to be eliminated are arguably rather at odds with Jesus, who said, "For the poor always ye have with you."[1]

The Austrian school economist, Friedrich von Hayek, objected to it as "nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'", and noted that because "social injustice" does not require any human action to bring about, the rule of law would need to be done away with for any attempt at the implementation of "social justice."

Others, while perhaps not objecting to the abstract concept of social justice, object to the way in which the term is currently employed by those who insist that social justice must be implemented by the advancement of a certain political program. Besides the use by fascists and communists, for example, social justice is a plank in green parties the world over.

Many churches still use the term in a (relatively) apolitical way. This caused a bit of a furore when Glenn Beck, displaying his usual powers of perception and confusing this usage with Coughlin's and the Marxists', warned his audience to run from any church using the term, such churches obviously being Communist, Nazi dens of heresy that should be reported to the authorities. Beck caught significant heat from Christians for his statement.[2]

 

[richard_daily]

Try to keep it brief.

Ishmael

The basic summery, is that you're an idiot.

 

[julybaby04]

I understand what you mean, but every society follows principles, and if you're part of any society, you have to follow them principles, no matter if you like them or not. In a free, open and democratic society, you can change those principles, if you got enough people on your side. And everybody has to follow them, whether they like it or not. That's how society works.

A good society keeps its social justice high, to be called a good society. And to be a save place. More social injustice, more turmoil. Call the poor just envious, but you always have to fear people who got nothing to lose.

There always have been poor people and there will always be poor people.....there will always be people who feel they deserve more.

A society does not guarantee everyone can be equal. There is no way to sustain that. To take all the money from those who have more to give to those who do not, then everyone is poor as there is no one to pay for anyone.

It is right and a good thing to help people.....but making life fair and making a society fair through "social justice" never works.

Again, it all goes back to a person's personal views. You say fear those who have nothing to lose....but I would offer up fearing just as much or more those who have everything to lose.

 

[bigkahuna9]

Social justice is whatever Liberals want it to mean. They are special and the smartest people ever..( usually the laziest as well) and whatever they determine not to be fair in their eyes is what needs fixed.

So See a minority isnt doing well enough...Thats not fair...Take somebodies elese money, job, property or place in school and give it to them...No matter it will never solve anything..its how much they care that counts.

See somebody is too wealthy or too successful... they arent playing fair... let us fix that

See how somebody is doing something the do gooders dont like ( oildrilling, gass drilling, fishing, hunting, drinking to much soda, smoking, giving away a toy with a meal.... No problem.. Liberal dogooders( douchebags) will fix it and make it work better ( NEVER) and it will only cost 5 times what it used to or should cost.

So dont you worry about what social justice is... They will tell you when you need to know....or when you need to pay for "fixing it".

Kinda like they fixed the social injustice of poor people in the inner cities were not getting enough home loans... How dare bankers use long established 20% down guidelines to make good decisions... What do bankers know ? Barry Obama and the liberal dogooders know whats better.. Just force banks to lower their standards ( Liberals have done that for years)so poor people can buy homes they cant afford...and when that doesnt do enough...force Fannie and Freddie to buy those risky loans by the millions.... What could go wrong with that logic ??????

 

[Lancecastor]

In a pure capitalist USA, George W Bush & Obama would have taken the advice of those around them who said they should have let the economic meltdown run its natural course.

That is, those businesses that couldn't survive should have been left to let the marketplace sort out through bankruptcy, acquisition, etc.

But it was decided that to let pure market capitalism sort it out would be unjust to American Society as a whole and in particular to various key clusters of participants in the US Economy:

• shareholders in affected companies
• brokers and brokerages
• Wall Street
• home owners
• employees of affected companies

...and so on.

So, you could use the Stimulus Package as an example of an exercise in Social Justice.

You could also say the same about the Womens Rights movement in the USA 30 years ago.

Or Affirmative Action.

And arguably, FDR's New Deal, the pillars of which became the foundation of the just society which have defined Post Depression social policy in the USA.

All are good examples of Social Justice at work.

As with The Law of Equity and The Law of Natural Justice, Social Justice is not Codified the way The Uniform Commercial Code and most other laws are made "definitive".

Because Social Justice, Natural Law and Equity all flex, bend and morph with changes to society and the social contract, they will by definition elude Ishmael's "request" for a B&W Definition.

Of course, Ishmael knows this (or ought to), which is why as a right leaning free market capitalist by nature, he will sit back and swat those away who try to "define" something that is by definition, fluid in nature.

To those who actually understand the role of social justice in a free market economy, Ish is making a fool of himself by lording over the dummies who don't.

Which is why this is an excellent thread...Ish gets to amuse himself with the great unwashed... and the rest of us get to have a giggle at his expense.

 

[julybaby04]

In a pure capitalist USA, George W Bush & Obama would have taken the advice of those around them who said they should have let the economic meltdown run its natural course.

That is, those businesses that couldn't survive should have been left to let the marketplace sort out through bankruptcy, acquisition, etc.

But it was decided that to let pure market capitalism sort it out would be unjust to American Society as a whole and in particular to various key clusters of participants in the US Economy:

• shareholders in affected companies
• brokers and brokerages
• Wall Street
• home owners
• employees of affected companies

...and so on.

So, you could use the Stimulus Package as an example of an exercise in Social Justice.

You could also say the same about the Womens Rights movement in the USA 30 years ago.

Or Affirmative Action.

And arguably, FDR's New Deal, the pillars of which became the foundation of the just society which have defined Post Depression social policy in the USA.

All are good examples of Social Justice at work.

As with The Law of Equity and The Law of Natural Justice, Social Justice is not Codified the way The Uniform Commercial Code and most other laws are made "definitive".

Because Social Justice, Natural Law and Equity all flex, bend and morph with changes to society and the social contract, they will by definition eleude Ishmael's "request" for a B&W Definition.

Of course, Ishmael knows this (or ought to), which is why as a right leaning free market capitalist by nature, he will sit back and swat those away who try to "define" something that is by definition, fluid in nature.

To those who actually understand the role of social justice in a free market economy, Ish is making a fool of himself by lording over the dummies who don't.

Which is why this is an excellent thread...Ish gets to amuse himself with the great unwashed... and the rest of us get to have a giggle at his expense.

...*like button*

 

[1sickbastard]

Try to keep it brief.

Ishmael

Equal rights for all, but special privileges for me (or my associated sub-section of society).

 

[PoppingTom]

A society does not guarantee everyone can be equal. There is no way to sustain that. To take all the money from those who have more to give to those who do not, then everyone is poor as there is no one to pay for anyone.

That's right, if you think in absolutes.

But "social justice" is no ideal. It's a state, a digit. If you're against any social justice, you're against prosperity at all.

It is right and a good thing to help people.....but making life fair and making a society fair through "social justice" never works.

It worked the last 60 years in my country.

Again, it all goes back to a person's personal views. You say fear those who have nothing to lose....but I would offer up fearing just as much or more those who have everything to lose.

You should take a lesson in history. In Russia, the rich lost everything, because the poor people got nothing and believed those who promised them a better life, if every big wealth is taken and put into workers hands.

The more people got, the less they revolt. This works everywhere. The rich who are paying, are paying for their security. And sometimes it's cheaper to pay a tax and keep people more well of, than to pay a whole private army for the own security.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lancecastor]

Social Justice is everyone putting Vetteman on Ignore.

 

[PoppingTom]

Social Justice is everyone putting Vetteman on Ignore.

http://waterharvest.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/tumblr_kpoipg2ifa1qziy3fo1_400.jpg

 

[Adre]

Social justice is a former community organizer gets to take several 4 million dollar vacations to Hawaii. The Hawaii Reporter breaks it all down here:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/residents-alerted-to-obamas-hawaiian-holiday-plans/123

I wasn't here back then so I don't know if you whined about W taking hundreds of days off. I can guess, though

 

[julybaby04]

That's right, if you think in absolutes.

But "social justice" is no ideal. It's a state, a digit. If you're against any social justice, you're against prosperity at all.




It worked the last 60 years in my country.



You should take a lesson in history. In Russia, the rich lost everything, because the poor people got nothing and believed those who promised them a better life, if every big wealth is taken and put into workers hands.

The more people got, the less they revolt. This works everywhere. The rich who are paying, are paying for their security. And sometimes it's cheaper to pay a tax and keep people more well of, than to pay a whole private army for the own security.

I believe the most correct thing you stated was what worked in "your" country.

Perhaps this in "my" country have a different view and would like those who enjoy living here to do, at least a little bit, and keep this country as great as it once was.

Giving things away for nothing (or in the case of the now majority......taking things away from others and giving to those who have less for nothing) never inspires anything but another hand out.

If someone wants the benefits of living in this country....they need to get up and help....not beg.