Anyone care to define social justice...?

[Marcus]

. . Trying to delegitimize demands upon society for perceived injustices by relegitimizing the status quo . . 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. . . you are saying that "the way things are right now = justice". . .

Well, I don't know where the hell you got that out of this thread . . Who here is claiming that the way things are now equals justice?

I may have "heard," but I damn sure haven't heard that . .

[Dioscuri]

Marcus, this is the whole problem right here:

If The Moral Law were fully applied,

The Moral Law is never fully applied. "Full application" of the moral law is not possible for the simple reason that we exist in Time, and in Time every problem and contingency has never yet been manifested, and so injustice always endures in new temporal manifestations, and so demands for justice in different forms must always appear to confront them. Justice is an eternal demand. It never stops, because injustice never stops. The position that holds that "Justice = Justice" and accuses another faction of making illegitimate demands, is making a fundamental category error: taking Justice as a static entity within time instead of as an Eternal entity that manifests dynamically across temporality. What the "Justice = Justice" position is saying is precisely that people who complain of injustice should just shut up and accept their lot. Which obviously will never happen. Hence the stupidity of this thread, in which, as is so often the case, my presence is the sole redeeming quality.

[Ibrahim]

Apparently "social justice" was coined by a 19th century Italian Jesuit to specify issues among the poor and working classes created by the Industrial revolution. I mean if you believe history professors.

http://www.acton.org/sites/v4.acton.org ... 1-behr.pdf

Luigi Taparelli, S.J. promoted the revival of scholasticism at the Collegio
Romano in the 1820s, where the future Leo XIII was among his students. With
his Theoretical Treatise on Natural Right Based on Fact, 1840–1843, he elaborated
a natural-law approach to politics that became a hallmark of Catholic social
doctrine. Among those whom Pius IX assigned to found the journal Civiltà
Cattolica in 1850, Taparelli’s critiques of radical liberalism left him erroneously
marked in public consciousness as an intransigent opponent to political liberalization
in general. This reputation marginalized interest in Taparelli and
obscured the relevance of his theoretical works to the development of the
Catholic liberal tradition. Among other things, Taparelli elaborated the concepts
of social justice and subsidiarity but with implications at times quite different
from how these terms have been used historically.

...

… As the theories emerged, the paragon stone, to assure myself not to have
been mistaken, was always to compare them with Saint Thomas.… I came
to recognize that this science found itself already beautifully done in the
Scholastics, and particularly in Saint Thomas, Suarez, Bellarmine, Vitoria,
et cetera.…

So clearly some hippie word-play.

[Marcus]

The Moral Law is never fully applied. "Full application" of the moral law is not possible for the simple reason that we exist in Time, and in Time every problem and contingency has never yet been manifested, and so injustice always endures in new temporal manifestations, and so demands for justice in different forms must always appear to confront them. Justice is an eternal demand. It never stops, because injustice never stops. The position that holds that "Justice = Justice" and accuses another faction of making illegitimate demands, is making a fundamental category error: taking Justice as a static entity within time instead of as an Eternal entity that manifests dynamically across temporality. What the "Justice = Justice" position is saying is precisely that people who complain of injustice should just shut up and accept their lot. Which obviously will never happen. Hence the stupidity of this thread, in which, as is so often the case, my presence is the sole redeeming quality.

I agree that The Moral Law is never fully applied nor can it be in this age. Nor is the problem "time" so much as it is our fallen natures. But, yes, time is a factor:

"New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth."

And all that. Time makes ancient good uncouth, but time never makes justice out of injustice because justice is eternal and objective.

What's being argued here, as least on my part, is nothing more than that all justice is social in nature. Man is both individual and corporate nor can he escape either aspect of his human nature.

Injustice is never justice . . no one here, as least that I can hear, is saying that.

As for your presence on this thread being its only redeeming quality . . . ummmmm . . well, . . . . . to each his own . .

[cdgt]

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".

^ If you think that is what I'm saying, you're not reading very well. Perhaps if I wrote in Greek?

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 your straw man were actually correct, then that is the correct conclusion.

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

The nature of man is that he is very selective in his applications of justice. The pursuit of social justice merely is more of the same. Very predictable and uninteresting.

[noddy]

while all the *individual* interpretations of social justice are fine for what they are, i thought we had this nifty system of politics and legality that allowed all these divergent priorities to squabble it out and come to an agreement on which things are enforced across the entire multicultural system good n hard.

which does beg the question, if you aint happy with the outcomes of that, what exactly are you proposing?

im complety and utterly jaded to pleasant sounding mission statements, tasty details on how that mission statement becomes reality is where it gets interesting.

[Simple Minded]

Simple Minded:

What social justice really amounts to, though I can't seem to get some folk to see that it has no intrinsic meaning , is a selective set of injustices that the owner of that set wishes to see prioritized above other injustices for correction, up to and including committing new injustices to implement said correction. Hypocrisy on moral posturing stilts, in other words.

....... Exactly.... very nice summary.....

a concept every bit as subjective as Who is better looking? blonds, brunettes, or redheads

Sometimes... often...... if you let the fish run.... they set the hook themselves...

only to later blame....... da man, !%. God, Big Govt, Big Business, SOCIETY!!!!

[Simple Minded]

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

Amen brother!!!

[Simple Minded]

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.

That is priceless brother. Thank you!

[Simple Minded]

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.

True, but people also use the phrases:
"Life is fair!" and "Life is hard!" everyday, sometimes the same person uses both in the same day, simply because the meanings of Life, fair, and hard are subjective. That and some people don't know what the meaning of the word is... is..

People who are talking often think they agree, when it comes time to practise they learn their perspectives are differnt......

[Simple Minded]

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

I find it fascinating, difference of opinion I mean.......you don't.... hmmm...... subjective.... maybe?

Do you think blondes, brunettes or redheads are more attractive.....

I hope you don't rely on your mind reading skills to feed your family...

[Dioscuri]

No, it's not all just subjective. The objectivity of a situation is shown in people's words (though not always in a literal interpretation of them).

The resort to "but it's all just subjective" indicates, objectively, a failure to measure up to a challenge, a mediocrity.

[noddy]

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.

social justice only has a coherant meaning within a single community ..this is the social bit.

if your telling me that conservative christians, progressive greenies and capitalist pigs,mind your own business borderers, asian families and all the other subcultures in the modern west have the same rules for whats fair and whats not fair im awfully confused and have nothing to say.

endo is more open about this, he hates the germanic versions of social justice and wants them hung and shot.

[cdgt]

...

endo is more open about this, he hates the germanic versions of social justice and wants them hung and shot.

And which version of social justice will win? Germany's or Portugal's? Whichever, I suspect the reason won't be justice, probably something more mundane like economic and military power.

• But, to certain regimes, terms like social justice probably have their uses in massing disaffected populations together where they can be identified ... or worse.
  
  Oh, and that's the other thing the Germans are good at, creating envy and enemies...

[Simple Minded]

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.

social justice only has a coherant meaning within a single community ..this is the social bit.

if your telling me that conservative christians, progressive greenies and capitalist pigs,mind your own business borderers, asian families and all the other subcultures in the modern west have the same rules for whats fair and whats not fair im awfully confused and have nothing to say.

endo is more open about this, he hates the germanic versions of social justice and wants them hung and shot.

Noddy, I think you have a pretty good read on this..... doesn't mean I want to bond with you though..... sorry...

[Simple Minded]

Directed at no one in particular...

Funny how often....... and how quickly those who profess to be driven by the purest of hearts and to believe in nothing more than "social justice" for all.... resort to "except those idiots who are too effing stupid as to not recognize my intellectual and moral superiority........ they have some nerve to disagree with me!"....

init?

Kinda splains the historical role of weapons in implementing social justice....

[noddy]

i have endless sympathy for those that cant stand the sterile world of the suburban middle class west and want todo something different, more humane and more coherant for them.

for me, most middle class westerners are infantile superfical c*nts, i dont like em, never have and i have zero interest in living by their tedious fear worshipping rules, appearance driven vanities and lowest common denominator statistics analysis...

im a minority viewpoint and i know politics will never deliver what i want because it will always be dominated by those i dislike and in another age would have prolly gone to war against quite regularly ;P

plenty of cool individuals within that broad brush, and i have been on this planet long enough to build my little collection of them and we help eachother as best as we can.

my only interest in politics is to work out how to get self determination back on the agenda, thats my social justice... outcomes are your responsiblity and in my country atleast, its still possible to create good ones for yourself without needing favours from the mafia.

as for the horror stories, the people who cant build their own little worlds, im all for my tax money providing safety nets and access to education and food and housing... all thats needed is the money that currently goes towards government, starts coming back out again as social spending.

in my country that means alot of government departments and non viable corporates that live on tax money get to live in my world of modest wages or on the social safety net... its a pleasant dream, alas, its not going to happen :[

[noddy]

Social justice has two components:

"Social", means that it concerns people within a community.

"Justice", means that it concerns guaranteeing people's rights.

Communities arose from the fact that one's survival is more easily attained in cooperation with others, and that each one should contribute to the common good within his/her means, and benefit from the assistance of others to the extent of each one's needs. That means that what you put in the community does not have to be equal, in material value, to what you are entitled to take out. If you give what you can, you are entitled to take what you need. The problem is assessing what the word "need" means, but we must assume that it refers only to what you need to live in a manner that does not affect you human dignity. Food, shelter, basic clothing, access to education and health care. It is also difficult to assess whether one is contributing to the common good to the extent of one's capacity. But it isn't impossible. One must assume that if one is working a regular day's work that he/she is doing his/her share, no matter what the material value of the effort. If one is not working, because there is no work, one should be assigned a task benefiting the community, such as caring for the young or the elderly, helping to preserve the environment, etc.. Beyond this, social justice must mean that no one is allowed to take advantage of any other person in the community. No exploitation, no oppression...

Not all that difficult to understand, is it?...

my country has minimum wage, it has public healthcare and it has free libraries with internet... all good to me, we used to have free university but alas the professional students (bored middle class people with independant wealth) soaked up all the resources and made it non viable :/

the problem is housing and food but alas both sides of politics dont want to touch that because middle australia is only interested in making houses more expensive and food growing more illegal, ermm safe.

this unfortunately crosses the left/right boundaries and leaves it a moot point as to how to use politics to fix it... the right focuses on prices, the left on enforced standards.

minimum wage doesnt work aswell as it ought to, you can break the rules easily by changing to temporary contract work.... which is the problem with legalism, it only works on honest people.

[noddy]

i wonder if westerners will ever allow for multiple worldviews to coexist, for all the criticisms of asia and the pacific in terms of tribal problems they actually do have different tribes.

most westerners i know cant even get their heads around difference, call it hubris or call it sheltered naivety its almost shocking to them that their might be different versions of reality to their own and the reaction of fear is overwhelming.

[Endovelico]

Thank you noddy for having had the trouble of reading what I wrote. Being ignored means either that you are so far off the point that it is a waste of time responding, or that your point is difficult to disagree with. I would like to think that the latter is the case, but the way this thread has gone makes me doubt it...

I'm going to give it another try.

Social justice only makes sense if one considers that there are social rights. In which case social justice is guaranteeing that every person's social rights are respected.

Are there social rights? The answer to that may vary but I would like to think that there are, and that the most important are:

- right to live
- right to have your basic needs (relating to your survival) satisfied, such as shelter, food and clothing
- right to work, which may mean a productive activity, or an activity beneficial to the community
- right to access to proper health care
- right to education

Does having a right to something mean that it must be free or provided solely by the state? Obviously not. It means that it must be guaranteed even beyond any person's ability to pay for it. I pay for what I need and if I don't have enough to pay for all I need within the realm of social rights, than the community will provide the difference. So, is education free of charge? No. But you may not be denied access to education if you can't pay it in full. The same for health care. Putting this into practice would be difficult, but not impossible. Based on real income and family size, people could be divided in, say, five categories, paying from zero to one hundred percent (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) of the costs of said services. Your contribution may be different from category to category. A low income family may pay 0% of education and health care, but pay 25% of housing costs and 50% of basic food. Exceptional health costs might be handled a bit differently, requiring maybe the use of insurance. A bit bureaucratic maybe, and requiring a good control of people's income declarations, but possible.

[Dioscuri]

What must be superior will make itself superior. Weapons, yes, are involved in this process. When have they not been?

A Name of true command is worth more than a human life and more than X million human lives. Legions will crave death for the sake of allegiance to a Name worthy of being followed. This is not "Western." "Cultures" are not different in this respect, in this they are the same. There is One Law for Man.

It is common to believe that someone, anyone, "lives his own life". That anyone "does what he wants", "makes his own way in the world." Also commonly held that people "compete with each other", that one "thinks himself the superior" to another. Illusion. The Dance of Maya. There is One Law for Man and all obey it, those who think themselves free being most obedient of all.

You hear truly, gentlemen, when I say there is not a solid, self-determining individual alive who does not make himself a drippingly useable cunt in the presence of that which is his Master. Simply ask yourself, whenever you think of how it might be possible for people to become more "self-determined" and "free", free to do what? Free to do what, and with what to do it?

Among all the six-ish billion participants in this our global economy, that is a question with one answer and one answer only.

What "social justice" is follows clear as day from what Man's Master is.

[noddy]

Thank you noddy for having had the trouble of reading what I wrote. Being ignored means either that you are so far off the point that it is a waste of time responding, or that your point is difficult to disagree with. I would like to think that the latter is the case, but the way this thread has gone makes me doubt it...

I'm going to give it another try.

Social justice only makes sense if one considers that there are social rights. In which case social justice is guaranteeing that every person's social rights are respected.

Are there social rights? The answer to that may vary but I would like to think that there are, and that the most important are:

- right to live
- right to have your basic needs (relating to your survival) satisfied, such as shelter, food and clothing
- right to work, which may mean a productive activity, or an activity beneficial to the community
- right to access to proper health care
- right to education

Does having a right to something mean that it must be free or provided solely by the state? Obviously not. It means that it must be guaranteed even beyond any person's ability to pay for it. I pay for what I need and if I don't have enough to pay for all I need within the realm of social rights, than the community will provide the difference. So, is education free of charge? No. But you may not be denied access to education if you can't pay it in full. The same for health care. Putting this into practice would be difficult, but not impossible. Based on real income and family size, people could be divided in, say, five categories, paying from zero to one hundred percent (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) of the costs of said services. Your contribution may be different from category to category. A low income family may pay 0% of education and health care, but pay 25% of housing costs and 50% of basic food. Exceptional health costs might be handled a bit differently, requiring maybe the use of insurance. A bit bureaucratic maybe, and requiring a good control of people's income declarations, but possible.

quick answer is that is basically the australian system - progressive taxes that get higher as you earn more and means tested services that get cheaper as you get poorer.

the americans would be quick to point out it has perverse incentives, which it does - odd combinations of things that make you poorer if you earn more because the tax increase plus the loss of services leaves you with less money

the devil you skip over is the "bit bureaucratic " aspect and politics that goes into deciding how much money im allowed to earn above basic survival before the penalties kick in.. its pretty hard to get ahead and start a new business, the government is always changing the rules.

proper healthcare is a can of worms, queue "death panel" discussions and lots of politics about whats covered and whats not and how much say the government gets in lifestyle choices if its paying for your lifestyle consequences... say goodbye to liberal attitudes and say hello to puritans.

education is an even bigger political shitfight over here, the rise of the baby boomer "new age" agenda in schooling completely changed the landscape as they took over the public system and the conservatives didnt bother fighting it, they withdrew to the private system and then split the public tax money between the 2 systems.. an odd outcome which im personally quite angry with.. i started in the public but the loony left agenda forced my parents (and many others of my generation) to move us to private schools rather than fight the fight over the public system... anyway, in a diverse cultural system its not a simple thing to fund "proper education" because their is no such that everyone agrees upon.

and as always im left with this absurd situation where individuals tell me the solutions are simple and obvious to a "reasonable" adult and the reality is our politics doesnt allow for that very often.

more and more im left with the chinese proverb "things are that together can only split and things that are split can only come together"... longer term it has to split back to coherant smaller groups that actually can define a word like "reasonable" and "social justice" or its going to get uglier.

how many arguments do you think you could have with the germans about "reasonable" and "social justice" .. really.. this stuff is only possible within smaller groupings or ruthless authoritarianism and i have no wishes for the latter.


queue dioscuri and his tribute to ruthless authoritarianism and how we all need it and love it... vomit.

[Simple Minded]

Thank you noddy for having had the trouble of reading what I wrote. Being ignored means either that you are so far off the point that it is a waste of time responding, or that your point is difficult to disagree with. I would like to think that the latter is the case, but the way this thread has gone makes me doubt it...

I'm going to give it another try.

Social justice only makes sense if one considers that there are social rights. In which case social justice is guaranteeing that every person's social rights are respected.

Are there social rights? The answer to that may vary but I would like to think that there are, and that the most important are:

- right to live
- right to have your basic needs (relating to your survival) satisfied, such as shelter, food and clothing
- right to work, which may mean a productive activity, or an activity beneficial to the community
- right to access to proper health care
- right to education

Does having a right to something mean that it must be free or provided solely by the state? Obviously not. It means that it must be guaranteed even beyond any person's ability to pay for it. I pay for what I need and if I don't have enough to pay for all I need within the realm of social rights, than the community will provide the difference. So, is education free of charge? No. But you may not be denied access to education if you can't pay it in full. The same for health care. Putting this into practice would be difficult, but not impossible. Based on real income and family size, people could be divided in, say, five categories, paying from zero to one hundred percent (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) of the costs of said services. Your contribution may be different from category to category. A low income family may pay 0% of education and health care, but pay 25% of housing costs and 50% of basic food. Exceptional health costs might be handled a bit differently, requiring maybe the use of insurance. A bit bureaucratic maybe, and requiring a good control of people's income declarations, but possible.

Endovelico and last three posts of Noddy,

Very well said. Thank you both. Sometimes, if I keep my mouth shut long enough, people say things better than I would.

When I get the time, if, in my arrogance, I think can add to these posts I will. Lots of common ground on opposites sides of two oceans........

[Simple Minded]

Also directed at no one in particular (a salve I hope that works):

Human Vanity..... the need to show superiority...... the desire to dominate and subjugate others.....

Some of the replies to this thread reminded me of something I heard 35+ years ago. We were playing one of those "There are two kinds of people in the world" games.

A friend said "My dad likes to say: There are two kinds of people in the world, those for whom no explanation is necessary, and those for whom no explanation is possible!"

Still seems true today, those who desire to be offended, find their stimulus everywhere.

Thanks to all for contributing to this thread. I enjoyed it, and hope to continue enjoying it......

[Enki]

while all the *individual* interpretations of social justice are fine for what they are, i thought we had this nifty system of politics and legality that allowed all these divergent priorities to squabble it out and come to an agreement on which things are enforced across the entire multicultural system good n hard.

which does beg the question, if you aint happy with the outcomes of that, what exactly are you proposing?

im complety and utterly jaded to pleasant sounding mission statements, tasty details on how that mission statement becomes reality is where it gets interesting.

Civil Rights was fought and won within the Republican Democracy of the United States. So social justice was served by this system. Still inequities abound, a drug war that currently enslaves more people than were enslaved under actual slavery for instance.

Ending the drug war would be social justice. And no, it's not subjective justice. If people who are doing something that doesn't hurt anyone are being locked in a cage to be raped by very mean and bad people, that's not justice. It's not subject to opinion. Anyone who says that a small time pot dealer going to prison is 'justice' is simply wrong. Their opinion does not hold equal validity with the person who thinks that in a free society, someone should be able to smoke or sell some cannabis. We can view this because we can stack up the two crimes next to one another and judge which is worse.

Selling pot vs Locking someone in a cage with a rapist.

Locking someone in a cage with a rapist is clearly and obviously the greater crime. So the fact that this punitive measure disproportionately targets certain communities makes the injustice a SOCIAL issue.