Anyone care to define social justice...?

[Simple Minded]

I had hoped this would assist in clarifying what some people mean by "social justice". But nobody cared about commenting on it (Enki excepted), which may mean, of course, that it wasn't good enough to justify commenting. But I seem to detect in your posts some doubts that might be resolved by focusing on my view of social justice. Ant then again, maybe not...

Not bad, Endovelico...... I thought about replying but decided to wait and see if this thread developed a life of it's own. Obviously, there are standard definitions of words, but people often impose their own subjective meaning instead.

Interests me how often people argue about what the ink blot is, long before details (who, what, where, when, how, how much, etc.) necessary to implement the ideology even enter the picture.

[Parodite]

I think it is a Christian concept.

Social Justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.

More

[Marcus]

I think [social justice] is a Christian concept.

Who knew? . . .

[Parodite]

Jesus also wanted his followers to pay "taxes", as implemented and ordained by the Divine center. Share your stuff, give to the poor, the weak, the sick...Be each others servant. Wash some dirty feet.

It is not written anywhere that modern people should not organise this TLC using their government to coordinate it all. People doing cry-baby because they don't want to pay their fair amount of taxes to make it possible, are not Christians. Or they should not be citizens of a large nation state with 300 million people of which many will always need TLC. They should live in small tribes where they can do charity entirely and only on their own terms. They are, in fact, not Americans.

[Enki]

Justice is 'social' in nature, but that doesn't mean anything.

If I get shot, and the person who shot me gets put on trial and goes to jail. That's justice.

If Jim Crow laws stipulate that a segment of society is inferior and must rely upon inferior services to the rest of society, and a civil rights movement ends those laws, that's social justice.

It's not rocket surgery, surgery that is performed with rockets.

[cdgt]

Justice is 'social' in nature, but that doesn't mean anything.

Good, we agree.

If I get shot, and the person who shot me gets put on trial and goes to jail. That's justice.

^ Social context.

If Jim Crow laws stipulate that a segment of society is inferior and must rely upon inferior services to the rest of society, and a civil rights movement ends those laws, that's social justice.

Ending those unjust laws wasn't social justice. Ending those laws simply established justice where there was injustice. Jim Crow laws were not justice. Ending them is justice. All in a social context, btw.

Punishing racial discrimination in civil and criminal law is now as much justice as punishing people in civil and criminal law for shooting people.

It's not rocket surgery, surgery that is performed with rockets.

I think surgery performed by projectiles belongs in the guns thread.

[Marcus]

. . Does 'social community' mean anything? No more than social justice.

Bingo, bingo, bingo! Justice is justice, and all justice is social in nature.

"Social Justice" is code-talk for class/race warfare.

[Enki]

Except that justice remains, not a synonym of community.

How long am I supposed to entertain your grammatical error masquerading as philosophical rebuttal? The interest in its semiotic features is waning.

Your argument is stupid because it is grammatically incorrect.

[Enki]

The crux of your argument is that we should narrow the features of our vocabulary set, because if we try to use more sophisticated phrasing in order to be more specific about the permutation of justice that we are observing, we are 'pretentious'. That is a ghetto argument where you say more things with fewer words.

flwC3tlfq88

[Marcus]

Except that justice remains, not a synonym of community.
How long am I supposed to entertain your grammatical error masquerading as philosophical rebuttal? The interest in its semiotic features is waning.
Your argument is stupid because it is grammatically incorrect.

C'mon, Tinker, how long must we entertain your hair-splitting?

Justice may not be a synonym for community, but justice is most assuredly a condition of community.

"Social" justice is a synonym for class warfare.

[Enki]

Look, you guys have set up this arrogant little 'simple folk' pretension, where you attack things irascibly just because you see them as 'sophisticated'. It's more of a group bonding session than it is an actual philosophical argument.

If y'all don't like the term 'social justice' then don't use it, but don't pretend that the meaning is not stable and obvious. Because that's just plain old dishonest.

[cdgt]

Wrong. The crux of my argument is:

• 1. The term social justice confers zero marginal intrinsic meaning over the simple word justice.
  
  2. Since the term does not and cannot convey intrinsic meaning, its use is likely as a buzzword, codeword, word game that can be imbued with custom meaning "at runtime" so to speak.
  
  3. In practice, it is a way to privatize justice in a selective and incomplete fashion, while at the same time feigning a moral posture.

The meaning is not intrinsically stable. That is the point.

[Enki]

1) This is incorrect. Social Justice is Justice in a macro sense as applied to large groups of people as opposed to the noun justice, which is just the all-encompassing idea of justice that can be social or individual or whatever, thus the need for the modifying adjective social in order to convey the meaning you are trying to impart.

2) It's a cawnspeeracy.

3) No.

[Ibrahim]

Wrong. The crux of my argument is:

1. The term social justice confers zero marginal intrinsic meaning over the simple word justice.

Which is laughable, and the same argument could be applied to "criminal justice" or any other sub-categorization. The specific issues addressed by social justice have already been listed.


"There is no spaghetti, there is no fusili, there is just pasta."

[Enki]

Thank you, this has been a fun diversion.

[Enki]

What hubristic crap, Tinker . . "simple folk"? Where's that BS coming from? Is it a big-city thing? Y'all are just too, ummm . . "sophisticated" for us po' country folk?

No, being from the country doesn't make you 'simple'. Saying that you cannot use an adjective to describe Justice...well...that's another story.

Of course "social justice" has a stable and obvious meaning. Trouble is, we disagree over what that meaning is. Duh . . .

No, you disagree that is hasn't always been applied well. That's a different argument, one that you haven't made yet.

More than one way to "group bond" . . . y'know . . "liberal," "left-wing," etc.

Sure, I feel some asabiya with Ibrahim right now.

Ibrahim ^5

[Marcus]

Wrong. The crux of my argument is: 1. The term social justice confers zero marginal intrinsic meaning over the simple word justice.

Which is laughable, and the same argument could be applied to "criminal justice" or any other sub-categorization. The specific issues addressed by social justice have already been listed. "There is no spaghetti, there is no fusili, there is just pasta."

More group-bonding BS.

All "justice" is social. "Criminal" justice is not a subcategory of justice but a subcategory of jurisprudence.

CD is right . . you can use all the adjectives to describe justice you want to, but "social" justice is a redundancy until it is used as a synonym for class warfare . . you guys just can't or won't admit it . .

[Enki]

The billions of people who use the term social justice meaningfully don't seem to have any problem understanding one another.

You can insist that it's not utile all that you like, but it is, clearly and obviously, because it's genuflecting used every damn day. Words that don't mean anything don't get used every day.

[Ibrahim]

Wrong. The crux of my argument is: 1. The term social justice confers zero marginal intrinsic meaning over the simple word justice.

Which is laughable, and the same argument could be applied to "criminal justice" or any other sub-categorization. The specific issues addressed by social justice have already been listed. "There is no spaghetti, there is no fusili, there is just pasta."

More group-bonding BS.

What, besides your arbitrary say-so, do you base this claim on?

All "justice" is social. "Criminal" justice is not a subcategory of justice but a subcategory of jurisprudence.

Is this actually meant to be serious, or are you likewise mocking CD's argument?

[cdgt]

1) This is incorrect. Social Justice is Justice in a macro sense as applied to large groups of people as opposed to the noun justice, which is just the all-encompassing idea of justice that can be social or individual or whatever, thus the need for the modifying adjective social in order to convey the meaning you are trying to impart.

^ Now we're getting somewhere. You imbue the term with a macro sense of large groups of people.* You pick the large groups at runtime though, as it is not communicated in the term itself. It's cover for whatever you want it to mean. Exactly.

2) It's a cawnspeeracy.

Its like a variable in a program, not a hard-coded value. Useful for twisting by folks of all stripes. Not unprecedented, nor the exclusive domain of the left.

3) No.

Yes.

• * As if justice is normally only individual.**
  
  ** Or as if small groups of people don't need justice.***
  
  ***Oddly, that implies justice for minorities isn't social justice.****
  
  **** Keep shucking and jiving Tinker, this is hilarious.
  

[Enki]

I am not imbuing anything. You're leaving out the word 'social' in your critique.

[cdgt]

The billions of people who use the term social justice meaningfully don't seem to have any problem understanding one another.

Billions?

• Psssst... you're shrieking again.

Words that don't mean anything don't get used every day.

[Enki]

Shrieking is your pure projection.

It's just justice modified by the word social. Don't really see your problem.

[Marcus]

The billions of people who use the term social justice meaningfully don't seem to have any problem understanding one another.

You can insist that it's not utile all that you like, but it is, clearly and obviously, because it's genuflecting used every damn day. Words that don't mean anything don't get used every day.

Tinker, I'm not claiming otherwise. You're not getting it. Of course "social justice" has meaning, and it is utile toward certain ends, and yadda, yadda, yadda. I agree. Okay.

We just disagree on the meaning and purpose of the phrase "social justice."

Strictly speaking, "social justice" is a redundancy. "Social justice" has nothing to do with justice per se, The Moral Law, or Lewis' Tao. If The Moral Law were fully applied, there'd be no need for the term "social justice." Social Justice, as it's used today is code-talk for "make-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share," "socialized medicine," or heaven-knows-what-else politicized, social programs.

[Dioscuri]

Fascinating thread IMSMO so far....

No, it's not, actually.

Trying to delegitimize demands upon society for perceived injustices by relegitimizing the status quo ("Justice is just justice") is an old and quite boring game. It amounts to nothing more than simply upholding the established legal/economic order as inherently just, and vituperating the suggestion that its justice is deficient as being inherently corrupt and base. So you are fact not saying that "Justice = Justice", you are saying that "the way things are right now = justice".

People who agree with that (i.e., beneficiaries of the current system) will agree with that, and people who disagree with that (non-beneficiaries) will disagree. Very predictable and uninteresting.


If you were actually interested in the nature of justice, you would have to understand something about the nature of Man, an earlier discussion of which you have declined to pursue: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=511