slug.com slug.com

7 11

Why Social Justice is antithetical to the Common Good.

(I apologize for the length but bear with me)

I want to examine this phenomenon and "Buzz Phrase" in use of late. Social Justice. After Googling it I find there are several definitions for it. From much reading I have discovered there seems to be a lack of a cohesive definition. So I researched its Etymology. The term “Social Justice” was first used in 1840 by a Sicilian priest, Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio, and given prominence by Antonio Rosmini Serbati in La Costitutione Civile Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848. This particular notion empowered the church to dispense such "Justice" under the virtues of the Church and religious dogma. Philosopher John Stuart Mill gave this anthropomorphic approach to social questions almost canonical status for modern thinkers thirteen years later in Utilitarianism:

"Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the utmost degree to converge."

Virtue being signaled as something "Deserved" by virtuous citizens. In short...earned by actions. And that for these people institutions and and other virtuous citizens must be forced to entrain. This, I believe, is part of the basis for modern "Social Justice" being decried. In todays political climate, this kind of talk might smack of Marxism. Advocates of so-called social justice are peddling Marxist notions. Somehow Social Justice has been intrinsically linked to Socialism and Marxism. And this begs the question..."Who gets to decide what is virtuous or what its requirements are?"

Tim Keller explains some of this in his writings. The economic aspect alone of social justice typically consists of some sort of appeal to economic equality, where the sense of justice implied is that of alleviating economic needs. Keller expresses this view saying, "if you do not actively and generously share your resources with the poor, you are a robber. You are unjust." He makes a similar claim in his article, "The Gospel and the Poor," (Sounds Familiar) saying, "To fail to share what you have is not just uncompassionate, but unfair, unjust." This is in tune with the "Wealth Redistribution" aspect of Marxism. Where the idea of being a Robin Hood (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) is being pushed on BY its engagers. But historically that has never happened. The money taken from the rich as well as the poor went to feed the members of the State. The poor tend to suffer more.

Friedrich Hayek, among whose many contributions to the twentieth century was a sustained and animated put-down of most of the usages of the term "social justice." I have never encountered a writer, religious or philosophical, who directly answers Hayek's criticisms. In trying to understand social justice in our own time, there is no better place to start than with the man who, in his own intellectual life, exemplified the virtue whose common misuse he so deplored.

The trouble with "Social Justice" begins with the very meaning of the term. Hayek points out that whole books and treatises have been written about social justice without ever offering a definition of it. It is allowed to float in the air as if everyone will recognize an instance of it when it appears. This vagueness seems indispensable. The minute one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties. It becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, "We need a law against that!" In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion over others.

Hayek points out another defect of twentieth-century theories of social justice. Most authors assert that they use it to designate a virtue (a moral virtue, by their account). But most of the descriptions they attach to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs such as "high unemployment" or "inequality of incomes" or "lack of a living wage" are cited as instances of "Social Injustice." Much of which we see and hear today. 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 over others.

So, to me it seems, Social Justice cries today are exactly that. An attempt by some to force their regulative "Principles" for their societal segments on the masses. I think we all know some examples of where this has been done before in human history? And since it has been repeatedly tried before, unsuccessfully, is there really a reason to try it again? The notion that they were never implemented properly before is, itself, an argument against them. If any system is so vulnerable to abuse literally every time its been tried. That doesnt speak much of the system does it?

MADcHATTER 7 Mar 29
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I don’t know who coined the turm. but i believe that economic justice, social justice and affirmative action are three parts of the same end game. if we look at the movement to over tax the rich and middle class or to put the rights of less successful or fringe before the majority.and this where affirmative action comes in to play this is where the opportunity and welth of the more successful part of a successful society are forced to either give up some of their own views or success to support or entitle the lesser or the fringe. this never makes the lesser of the fringe more successful but it does make the more successful people less successful. this is subversion this how you take down a successful society if you look at the robin hood legend this person wasn’t talking from the rich and giving to the poor out of the kindness of his heart he was talking down a more powerful person or society

1

The media has been weaponized against us from Dawn soap to Disney. We are paying $250 to $500 a month for cable, internet, and cell phone so that we can have our daily bread of processed daily poison. Like food entertainment is full of addictive addatives like Drama, scandle, lies, murder, all of which hook us in to wanting the radical injection of comedy right before bedtime. The process that evil uses to capture the real estate of our minds is a simple formula that is used over and over again. It's so suddle that most people will eat and sleep right through it. Only those who are awake and stubborn enough to think freely will escape the snare of the devil. Remember narrow is the way and few be who find it. I'm glad I found you here!

1

Absolutely agree 100%!
Like so many other words and phrases, the powers that be, have weaponized against the hard working, tax paying voters.. while hiding the truth behind their lies and propoganda driven media.
Now! How do we get that message out to the masses, in a way they will understand, in high enough numbers to make a difference?

2

I have seen it pointed out multiple times that putting a modifier in front of "justice" creates something different that is not justice at all. "Social justice" most often leads to injustice against individuals. Modified "justice" can only be achieved by perpetrating injustice against the group(s) that has lost its protected status.

It's important you pointed out that the term has been undefined from the beginning. That makes it useful for socialists & progressives to use it as a bludgeon (with their definition du jour) against any target – in this day and age, usually white males. And, being undefined, it's easy to use the term to promote virtues that are malleable, since they are not rooted in any absolute truth. Proponents of "social justice" have typically rejected the supremacy (sometimes even the existence) of God and/or the authority of any Scripture, so "virtue" is whatever they decide it is in committee today. A few years ago "virtue" was demanding that the budgets for women's college sports and men's college sports be equal, whereas today's virtue demands that men who think they are women (despite having penises) be permitted to compete in women's sports.

Good post. Thank you.
One other observation: I used to mis-use the phrase "begs the question," and I had to learn that it is not synonymous with "raises the question." Allow me to respectfully encourage you to look it up and possibly revise what you wrote.
[quickanddirtytips.com]

1

A very well researched question and argument. But to understand the concept a little better go back to the fifth century when the Roman Catholic Church "ruled" the world, or at least part of it. The church and states were greatly entertwined and reached the zenith of its political power with Chalemaine accepting Christianity and becoming the Holy Roman Empire ruler. After that, the church's political power went into a long decline. But there emerged the role of the monks and friars who went out into the various feudal states and working with the peoples and their lords, sought to influence the idea of law, religion, and justice through moral persuasion. So the Christian world entered a state of struggle and tension between the various "states" or monarchies and the pope. Then came the reform movements of Luther and others and the rise of competing Christian religions to contend both the limited political power of Rome and it's religious and moral authority. We finally arrive at the Thirty Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia. Viola, states are recognized as having geographical boundaries and religious wars, except for ones against the Islamic Hordes) outlawed. Since that time the political influence of Rome has been increasingly diminished and the religious and moral authority challenged. The Enlightenment had much to do with the latter. Up to 1945, the wars in Europe tended to be border wars fought mostly as a means of securing a country's borders.

A great many books have been written that cover the subject of social justice and the like, as both political theory and moral theory. I read John Rawls and that was almost punishment enough to deter me from ever reading philosophy again. In science we can measure various physical properties to extremely precise levels, from the sub atomic to the galactic. Human behavior has no such precise metrics. Justice, fairness, love, and even hate have no exact and precise measurement and their definitions are, at best, vague. Why should this be true? Because these terms, these ideas, these ideals are emotions. I remember when I was a member of CWA and our leadership and a few of the stewards were fanning the fires of striking for higher wages, those of us who were in the top crafts were already making nice middle class money. The strike slogan was "Jobs With Justice". I kid you not, honest to god, that was the slogan. So I asked the local president just what was a job with justice. Her face went blank for a second and then came the canned message answer that never answered the question. But yes, it is about power, whether one is a marxist or a postmodernist, all life conditions are seen on a power scale and he with the most power wins.What exactly one wins is still undetermined.

2

Social Justice (modern definition) - (Keep it Simple Statement for us troglodytes) -
Not Social - it employs divide and conquer and tears societies apart, pitting groups against each other.
Not Justice - justice is applied to the group and individual justice is surrendered.

Example - Poor white man owes Oprah reparations.

3

This is also the history of public relations and propaganda .

"Real History" Group

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25671
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.