Social justice

[mrmacq]

Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which "justice" is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and an impartial share.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society

Social justice is both a philosophical debate and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Some of the tenets of social justice have been adopted by those who lie on the left or center-left of the political spectrum (e.g. socialists, social democrats, etc). Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

in your mind
what is social justice?
and how do we achieve?

[debbiestrange]

It is those who are in the majority to set the social norms, thus social justice...correct?

So...in saying that, social justice isn't always just....because social norms are often slow to change.

[mrmacq]

good thought
those whom are in the majority to set the social norms originally
im thinking the good of all to be social justice
when reading the op i got the feeling it would only be accomplished by whomever as they were thinking of all
even to their own detriment
for instance since its right in front of us at this time
medical for all
should not everyone be allowed as much time on this dirtball as possible?
wars
social justice should say its improper to harm/hinder only for anothers benifit
no?

[Curmudgeon]

What's Social Justice?
Reverse discrimination.
Left wing cause du jour.

. o O (Yeah, I know. A true Haiku is supposed to include some seasonal reference but you can't have everything. Blame minesadorada. This is all his fault)
:cool:

[mrmacq]

What's Social Justice?
Reverse discrimination.
Left wing cause du jour.

. o O (Yeah, I know. A true Haiku is supposed to include some seasonal reference but you can't have everything. Blame minesadorada. This is all his fault)
:cool:

why would you automatically assume it to be left wing?
is it not to the benefit of all
and please explain reverse discrimination
this has nothing to do with
race
creed
gender
or religion

[Curmudgeon]

why would you automatically assume it to be left wing?Knowledge of the world that goes beyond watching American Idol?
is it not to the benefit of allIn theory? Yes. In theory.
and please explain reverse discriminationYou're kidding, right? OK. Reverse discrimination = New discrimination intended to reverse old discrimination, or the ongoing attempt to prove that two wrongs do make a right.
this has nothing to do with
race
creed
gender
or religionThat is precisely what it "has to do with." Although as practiced in the U.S. it's usually just about race and/or gender.

[debbiestrange]

good thought
those whom are in the majority to set the social norms originally
im thinking the good of all to be social justice
when reading the op i got the feeling it would only be accomplished by whomever as they were thinking of all
even to their own detriment
for instance since its right in front of us at this time
medical for all
should not everyone be allowed as much time on this dirtball as possible?
wars
social justice should say its improper to harm/hinder only for anothers benifit
no?


Unfortunately there are major flaws in the social justice system.

Too often justice, on a social level, is rendered by those in higher status; although social justice is supposed to be for the good of all...it rarely is. Let me use me as an example:

I am not rich, but I am educated. That doesn't matter in the eyes of social justice when it comes to equality of medical service. If I had no insurance at all do you think I would be able to see the top doctors in the field of neurosurgery? No...I would get a doctor of less status...his time isn't as valuable as the top doctors.

In the criminal justice system...if you can't pay for a good attorney, you are stuck with a public defender....less qualified and experienced.

Social justice is bureaucratically determined. Thus, it really isn't justice at all.

[mrmacq]

Unfortunately there are major flaws in the social justice system.

Too often justice, on a social level, is rendered by those in higher status; although social justice is supposed to be for the good of all...it rarely is. Let me use me as an example:

I am not rich, but I am educated. That doesn't matter in the eyes of social justice when it comes to equality of medical service. If I had no insurance at all do you think I would be able to see the top doctors in the field of neurosurgery? No...I would get a doctor of less status...his time isn't as valuable as the top doctors.

In the criminal justice system...if you can't pay for a good attorney, you are stuck with a public defender....less qualified and experienced.

Social justice is bureaucratically determined. Thus, it really isn't justice at all.

forgive but i get the feeling
you are looking at it only from the society you are part of

"doesn't matter in the eyes of social justice when it comes to equality of medical service. "
where i come from we get the same level no matter the "status"
your situation would afford good but free care
the really tough jobs going to the top surgeons
cant disagree with the second but this is why it should be embraced
all those that got the "kangaroo court" whether because of status color creed etc
plenty of wrongful deaths
"Social justice is bureaucratically determined"
yes at this time
i believe it doesn't have to be
as mentioned some will give up a bit for the benefit of all
now im sure not all can be accomplished at least not right away (if ever)
but shouldn't we be looking that direction
consider the bias we see everyday
why one rule for this person another for that
and we know it happens
or should we have this dog eat dog world?
someones just about to call me commie
i can feel it:rolleyes:

[mrmacq]

In theory? Yes. In theory.
.

you have this terrible habit of reading things into what others say
or deliberately misinterpreting
lets try again without your sarcasm shall we?
now this is all inclusive
why would you automatically assume it to be left wing,
is it not to the benefit of all................................In theory? Yes. In theory
now this is all inclusive
and please explain (how this is)reverse discrimination
this has nothing to do with
race
creed
gender
or religion

[fourquartets]

Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which "justice" is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and an impartial share.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society

Social justice is both a philosophical debate and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Some of the tenets of social justice have been adopted by those who lie on the left or center-left of the political spectrum (e.g. socialists, social democrats, etc). Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

in your mind
what is social justice?
and how do we achieve?

Capacious question, dearest, inviting an enormous response. It would start with Plato's Republic and Aristotle (justice as a virtue and the one most necessary for a state’s welfare) and move on to Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls (who draws on utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the "social contract" ideas of Locke, and the "categorical imperative" ideas of Kant). Fascinating topic, but I'll keep this short, especially since you asked for personal definitions.

Social justice isn't some amorphous blob of leftist thought, as ideologically defensive and/or intellectually lazy folks claim these days, but a rigorous philosophical and political concept that means things important to society. I'll say social justice is a process, rather than an outcome, which aims at fair (re)distribution of resources, opportunities, and responsibilities; challenges the roots of oppression and injustice; seeks to empower all people to exercise self-determination and realize their full potential; and builds social solidarity and community capacity for collaborative action. Granted a swarm of nuances, the concept of social justice often holds the following beliefs/values (among others): Historical inequities insofar as they affect current injustices should be corrected until the actual inequities no longer exist or have been perceptively "negated"; the redistribution of wealth, power and status for the individual, community and societal good; and the importance of government's (or those who hold significant power) responsibility in ensuring a basic quality of life for all its citizens.

Social movements, when conceived and organized right, are miraculous things, you know-- even if at times take decades to bear fruit.

[fourquartets]

Unfortunately there are major flaws in the social justice system.

Too often justice, on a social level, is rendered by those in higher status; although social justice is supposed to be for the good of all...it rarely is. Let me use me as an example:

I am not rich, but I am educated. That doesn't matter in the eyes of social justice when it comes to equality of medical service. If I had no insurance at all do you think I would be able to see the top doctors in the field of neurosurgery? No...I would get a doctor of less status...his time isn't as valuable as the top doctors.

In the criminal justice system...if you can't pay for a good attorney, you are stuck with a public defender....less qualified and experienced.

Social justice is bureaucratically determined. Thus, it really isn't justice at all.





All great points, Debbie. Health is most definitely an issue of social (in)justice. How can anyone be blind to disparities in health resulting from systemic, avoidable and unjust socioecomonic policies and practices that create barriers to opportunity? Socioeconomic status helps determine health as do discrimination, housing, physical environment, food security, child development, culture, social support, healthcare services, transportation, working conditions, and democratic participation. ... And then, yes, there's the quagmire of "corrective" types of justice, or what Foucault called "Discipline and Punish" :eek:.

[lizbethrose]

I haven't read this entire thread because, as usual, I find the misuse of the words 'who' and 'whom' to be very off-putting.

'Who' is used to describe the subject of a sentence, clause or phrase. 'Whom' is used to describe the object. The subject does the action, the object receives the action.

I realize I nit-pick, but this particular nit is one I can't help but pick since it really disturbs me. If you're educated, please, learn the difference between when to use 'who' and when to use 'whom'--otherwise you don't come across as being educated--even if ;you have a PhD.

Rant mode off.

[mrmacq]

im thinking toast and cut off crusts

[lizbethrose]

im thinking toast and cut off crusts

??? :confused:

[debbiestrange]

I haven't read this entire thread because, as usual, I find the misuse of the words 'who' and 'whom' to be very off-putting.

'Who' is used to describe the subject of a sentence, clause or phrase. 'Whom' is used to describe the object. The subject does the action, the object receives the action.

I realize I nit-pick, but this particular nit is one I can't help but pick since it really disturbs me. If you're educated, please, learn the difference between when to use 'who' and when to use 'whom'--otherwise you don't come across as being educated--even if ;you have a PhD.

Rant mode off.

~~~~holy shit...running back to see if I'm the offender of the "who" "whom" law~~~~~:D

[debbiestrange]

I was, indeed, the "who" "whom" offender but have fixed my flawed post so that it is now grammatically correct...........

:rolleyes:

[Wheresmycoffee]

All great points, Debbie. Health is most definitely an issue of social (in)justice. How can anyone be blind to disparities in health resulting from systemic, avoidable and unjust socioecomonic policies and practices that create barriers to opportunity? Socioeconomic status helps determine health as do discrimination, housing, physical environment, food security, child development, culture, social support, healthcare services, transportation, working conditions, and democratic participation. ... And then, yes, there's the quagmire of "corrective" types of justice, or what Foucault called "Discipline and Punish" :eek:.


Unfortunately, our system does not allow for a static system of social justice. It is a dynamic process that changes with the "changing of the guard" in every election. Different priorities, different objectives, different views on what constitutes said "justice". While common sense would seem to dictate a set of parameters common to all political parties, i.e., those ephemeral "basic human rights", reality does not conform to common sense in a political arena.

In short, the "expedient" wins out over the "just" every time.

[fourquartets]

~~~~holy shit...running back to see if I'm the offender of the "who" "whom" law~~~~~:D


:) I wouldn't worry much about that, Deb. We all have our favorite grammatical/mechanical mistake preferences, and in a forum such as this they can't but raise their goofy little heads ... now and then. Relative pronouns, used as subjects and objects, in defining and non-defining clauses, too often confuse folks, and then there's the whole issue of "usage" and how over time it inevitably changes language. I mean, American English is perhaps the only English in which a "comma splice" is a mistake, and even here it's becoming increasingly acceptable, certainly among creative writers.

Or, think about the infamous sentence fragments. Depending on your audience, a well-chosen sentence fragment (or two) can be extremely powerful. ("Nobody beats MIDAS. Nobody." ;)) It's important to remember that "good writing" is writing that is both interesting and correct. Way too often, for my taste, writing that is simply correct can be dull and uninformative and lacking the energy necessary to engage an audience, except perhaps the writer's mother. A writer's best bet is to aim for clarity (NO ONE complains that a passage is "too clear") and a natural "voice" appropriate to audience.

And, hey, remember the old "preposition" joke? Here's a (mild) version of it:

An Arkansan shows up at Harvard to study. He asks a guy, "Excuse me, Sir, where is the library at?"

Shocked, he replies: "Don't you know anything? Here, at Harvard, we never end a sentence with a preposition!"

The Arkansan pauses for a moment and then says, "Oh, I'm very sorry ... Where's the library at, Jerk?" :D

[fourquartets]

Unfortunately, our system does not allow for a static system of social justice. It is a dynamic process that changes with the "changing of the guard" in every election. Different priorities, different objectives, different views on what constitutes said "justice". While common sense would seem to dictate a set of parameters common to all political parties, i.e., those ephemeral "basic human rights", reality does not conform to common sense in a political arena.

In short, the "expedient" wins out over the "just" every time.



Coffee-- Yes, it is a process, and it is dynamic. Basic principles in it, however, remain major human priorities, and we cannot afford to allow any government to trash them. As I mentioned earlier, social movements can be wonderful things.

[FrankS]

~~~~holy shit...running back to see if I'm the offender of the "who" "whom" law~~~~~:D

...grammatical errors happen and I did appreciate how she explained the "who-whom" law but I would still enjoy what you had to say!

[Tan12pack]

Cambridge Cop Gets Standing Ovation In Address To 3,000 Fellow Officers...

[Tan12pack]

How right on the money was this pre-election Article on Obama and Social Justice....I don't appreciaite you hiding who you really are....i.e. a Left Wing Radical Dare to respond with your own opinions????????

October 13, 2008
Obama and Social Justice
Let's get very deep into the intellectual roots of Barack Obama.

Submitted for your consideration. Barack Obama represents himself as a candidate for Social Justice, and as such, based upon socialist ideas, defies the authority of America as the ultimate philosophical origin of his legitimate power. Obama believes more in social justice than in the American Constitution and will seek to change American life in deference to principles originating out of Leftist critiques of Capitalism and of Western Society.

Obama will exploit class, race and gender narratives in order to achieve his vision of social justice and will attempt to transform the political consciousness of America by convincing it that its principles of equality as envisioned by the Founders was insufficient to sustain a moral society. This vision of social justice will of necessity hew to principles of Marxism.

As President, Obama would be necessarily constrained to effect significant changes in the way America works, but his emphasis and attempts would all come in defiance of the individual for the purposes of the collective.

I challenge anyone to show what principles Obama has championed and what rhetoric he has spoken that contradict my assertions here. I believe that Obama is intelligent, opportunistic and ruthlessly pragmatic and that any argument that fails to locate his core beliefs is further evidence of his ambition. Therefore, whether or not he wins this election, those core beliefs and their intellectual provenance must be identified.

I don't trust him and I don't trust anyone's trust in him until these things are clear.

[mrmacq]

sorry didnt hear you
too much screaming
try again in a moderate voice

[Curmudgeon]

sorry didnt hear you
too much screaming
try again in a moderate voiceI'm with you all the way on this one, mrmacq.

. o O (Will wonders never cease?)

[mrmacq]

I'm with you all the way on this one, mrmacq.

. o O (Will wonders never cease?)

a bonding good god
my head hurts

[scotslad60]

Some people think that by shouting down others, they will 'win' the argument.... in their minds anyway!