What is Social Justice?

[Theaetetus]

I thought I would pose a wide open question, to a rather complex topic. What is social justice?

Some things to think about are: what determines if an action, plan, or restriction is socially just (e.g. entitlement, market, theory, dialogue, dictator, ethical theory, common good)? How would social justice be enforced (e.g. taxation, voting, laws, courts, police)? How do you protect lower class, or minority populations that lack political, economic, or social capital? What types of government would be best suited for fostering a society that valued social justice?

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

I thought I would pose a wide open question, to a rather complex topic. What is social justice?

Some things to think about are: what determines if an action, plan, or restriction is socially just (e.g. entitlement, market, theory, dialogue, dictator, ethical theory, common good)? How would social justice be enforced (e.g. taxation, voting, laws, courts, police)? How do you protect lower class, or minority populations that lack political, economic, or social capital? What types of government would be best suited for fostering a society that valued social justice?

I'd say...
Social justice is the aim to give all members of society the same advantages despite their origins and circumstances.
An action, plan or restriction is socially just if it levels the playing field or, if you hate metaphorical cliches, it affords equal opportunities. Thus it should simply be one principle and nothing more, like a constitution.
You protect those without political, economic or social capital by giving them the means to acquire it (and not just giving it to them straight - this would be decidedly unjust) at the expense, if necessary, of those who have too much of it. There are many programmes designed to do the former, but they receive very little government backing. Adult education is, for me, a strong issue. Not all children receive good schooling or the necessary parental support or environment to grow in to prosper in education.
I think Democracy should be fine, but we should make the tenets of social justice a constitution, i.e. above the voting public and their elected representatives.

[Theaetetus]

Thanks for the nice starting point. I do have an issue with one thing off of the top of my head is the idea of equal opportunity. First off, does every one actually want the same opportunities? For example, the current powers that be want everyone to be good little consumers, go to college, and make lots of money to help pay the tax burden. But does everyone want to have the equal opportunity to be a cog in the economic machine and be a consumer? Equal opportunity is often used as a mask to say well they had the opportunity, but did not exercise it. What people value is different. I am sure many people would rather have the chance to just have the opportunity to have a good job without going to college. But when those jobs are not their, do they have an equal opportunity to their own well being and happiness--no probably not.

Government programs also suffer from this. Some programs do not bend to the needs of the people, and instead are imposed upon people. Thus, some programs even make the problem worse than if nothing was done at all.

Democracy--especially the two-party system in the U.S.--is very susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. All it takes is a fraction over 50% to push around the rest of the population at will.

So ultimately I would ask, according to whose definition of social justice?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

"What is social justice?"

That is very large question, and I suspect discussion may branch in many directions, but here is the simple answer:

Social justice is the idea that seeks ethical treatment to all members of society in all of their interactions. To me, this requires maintaining the equity, liberty, and responsibility of the actors as if they had joined as free individual agents.

Originally Posted by Bones-O!

An action, plan or restriction is socially just if it levels the playing field or, if you hate metaphorical cliches, it affords equal opportunities. Thus it should simply be one principle and nothing more, like a constitution.

I'd say Bones is on track, but I would reword it. The opportunities that Bones speaks of is natural and preexist society. If it weren't for these opportunities being present prior to society, then society would never exist, as society only comes into being as a result of people looking to exploit these opportunities for their own fulfillment.

So I would say that an action, plan or restriction is socially just if it creates limitations prohibiting other agents from exploiting the opportunities provided by social interaction.

You protect those without political, economic or social capital by giving them the means to acquire it (and not just giving it to them straight - this would be decidedly unjust) at the expense, if necessary, of those who have too much of it.

See, to me this is backwards thinking. Like I said, the opportunities are natural and not provided by society, rather society comes about as a result of people looking to fulfill the natural opportunities. As a result there is no way in which society can provide opportunities, rather it can only place limitations on their fulfillment.

It is one of those tricks of language where you can say the same thing twice but cause drastically different modes of thought. If we think of society as a opportunity providing entity you can justify almost any limitation, as long as you see as equitable within society. Most who take society as provider simply state that society should provide equal opportunity while picking and choosing according to their own whims which are actually naturally forms of opportunity and not really mentioning why. Parenting, for example, may be the greatest measure of opportunity for a person, as the quality of one's parents will have lasting drastic effects on this person's future opportunities. Yet very few people offer up plans of socializing parenting (although it would probably more appropriate on a small community level).

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

What people value is different

Exactly. Evaluating and quantifying opportunity and determining who has too much or too little is an impossible task.

To support your point about social programs, there is a great deal of data to support the notion that welfare and other social support do nothing but create a need for welfare and other social support within entire communities. Welfare often does not raise to poverty level, it simply makes it harder to rise above the poverty level. Whats more, all of these welfare programs cannot help but be measures of social control as well, be it geographical segregation along lines of economic class, or be it institutionalizing education and dietary standards.

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Thanks for the nice starting point. I do have an issue with one thing off of the top of my head is the idea of equal opportunity. First off, does every one actually want the same opportunities? For example, the current powers that be want everyone to be good little consumers, go to college, and make lots of money to help pay the tax burden. But does everyone want to have the equal opportunity to be a cog in the economic machine and be a consumer? Equal opportunity is often used as a mask to say well they had the opportunity, but did not exercise it. What people value is different. I am sure many people would rather have the chance to just have the opportunity to have a good job without going to college. But when those jobs are not their, do they have an equal opportunity to their own well being and happiness--no probably not.

I see what you're saying... I don't quite agree but I don't think we mean the same thing by 'equal opportunity' either. On the first of those points, opportunity does not mean necessity. I don't think the question of who wants opportunities enters into the administration of who may exploit them. Equal opportunities is a principle, and any opportunities should, in principle be open to anyone. If someone chooses not to seize that opportunity, the problem of 'who wants this opportunity' is solved automatically. But I think EO means something different to you than to me. I regard it as, where an opportunity exists, only factors which make it impossible to grant an individual that possibility should, in principle, be weighed against their favour, and not irrelevant factors such as race, gender, sexuality and upbringing.

On the question of jobs, you've hit another bugbear of mine, related to adult education which is the problem of retraining. This used to occur naturally, however now employers tend to expect both a degree in a relevant field and years worth of prior experience before even giving a candidate an interview. That this is permissible, to me, is just another aspect of the state supporting corporations over its own (real) people.

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Democracy--especially the two-party system in the U.S.--is very susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. All it takes is a fraction over 50% to push around the rest of the population at will.

Yup. And its lack of vision, its inconsistency, its self-interest, its stupidity... But it is representative government (hence most administrations lack vision, are inconsistent, self-interested and stupid).

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

So ultimately I would ask, according to whose definition of social justice?

In my opinion it is not a question of definition. Social justice is itself a well-defined principle imo. Perhaps we could think of examples (above yours, which I don't agree is a problem) where the principle of social justice leaves ambiguity as to its application. I suppose everything must hit a wall somewhere...

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I'd say Bones is on track, but I would reword it. The opportunities that Bones speaks of is natural and preexist society. If it weren't for these opportunities being present prior to society, then society would never exist, as society only comes into being as a result of people looking to exploit these opportunities for their own fulfillment.

Cheers for the response, Mr FtP. I don't really agree, though, with your view that these opportunities (at least the ones of which I spoke) are pre-social. (I assume you are not extending the definition of 'society' here to pre-civilisation, naturally arising social groups, to which our species has always belonged.) I think society and such opportunities develop hand-in-hand. As soon as there is an authoritative position on justice, which requires such a society, the notion of fairness and so equal opportunities may evolve.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

So I would say that an action, plan or restriction is socially just if it creates limitations prohibiting other agents from exploiting the opportunities provided by social interaction.

If the opportunities are exploited unequally (i.e. disproportionately), they are neither socially just nor equal opportunities.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

See, to me this is backwards thinking. Like I said, the opportunities are natural and not provided by society, rather society comes about as a result of people looking to fulfill the natural opportunities. As a result there is no way in which society can provide opportunities, rather it can only place limitations on their fulfillment.

Ahh! But natural opportunities are not equal opportunities: they are not within the scope of social justice. Social justice can only be concerned with society-derived opportunities.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Exactly. Evaluating and quantifying opportunity and determining who has too much or too little is an impossible task.

Not at all. Progressive taxation, for instance, has worked fairly easily in the UK, bar tax avoidance which could be dealt with. Of course, such justice would come at an economic price.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

To support your point about social programs, there is a great deal of data to support the notion that welfare and other social support do nothing but create a need for welfare and other social support within entire communities. Welfare often does not raise to poverty level, it simply makes it harder to rise above the poverty level. Whats more, all of these welfare programs cannot help but be measures of social control as well, be it geographical segregation along lines of economic class, or be it institutionalizing education and dietary standards.

I wasn't speaking of welfare, but of support to facilitate progress. We have no data on this because we don't do it. I'd much rather spend my tax on someone's education than on someone's 'job seekers allowance'. I agree there is a self-perpetuating aspect to welfare, but this has nothing to do with my point about social programs.

[Theaetetus]

Now a question arises. What is the nature of humans? Are they primarily social animals or are they deliberative, self-conscious, animals. The former would suggest that social justice is based upon natural rights, because it is in our nature to interact and depend on others; and the later suggests that social justice is bound up in proper enforcement of socially contracted rights.

[nameless]

Social Justice (an ideal)
There are so many definitions of 'justice'...
(For many, for instance, the notion of 'justice' is equivalent with 'revenge'..)

But, I'm going to grab a passing Perspective and venture this;

= Rights
= Responsibility
= Under the Law

Which is antithetical to the 'Golden Rule';
"He who has the 'gold', makes the 'rules'!"
(Which seems to be another Perspective of 'social justice'...)

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Now a question arises. What is the nature of humans? Are they primarily social animals or are they deliberative, self-conscious, animals. The former would suggest that social justice is based upon natural rights, because it is in our nature to interact and depend on others; and the later suggests that social justice is bound up in proper enforcement of socially contracted rights.

I don't think being naturally social is enough to make social justice natural. The concept of justice also has to be natural, and not independent of the social. As per my reply to Mr. FtP, social justice requires an authority of justice within society. I believe some of this authority is natural, insofar as we have evolved to protect the socials groups that in turn protect us. But from this, justice for the individual does not necessarily (or even frequently) arise. Most social groups are hierarchical in nature, and I believe ours (judging by its history and present condition) adheres to this dynamic. Social justice is quite against such a structure: it's aim is a flattening of the pyramid, so to speak.

As for rights in a socially just society, I believe these should be derived from the principle of social justice rather than the other way round as per your suggestion (i.e. derive social justice from civil rights), even if our idea of social justice historically does come from the evolution of rights. As I said, we could put this to the test. Define the principle of social justice and see if there's any situation where ambiguity, contradiction or simply something rotten comes out. Here's my one:

The Principle of Social Justice: It is the duty of the state to ensure that the opportunities afford its citizens are independent of current or historical coincidental factors and, moreover, to lay provision for its citizens to empower themselves to seize such opportunities where dependent factors apply by means that minimise cost impact for every other citizen.

From this, many elements of actual social justice are derived. For instance, discrimination based on, e.g, race, gender, sexuality, etc. must be prohibited by the state since these are coincidental factors, irrespective of the source of the opportunities (since the opportunities are not necessarily state-originated). Further, while welfare does not necessarily follow, it becomes the state's responsibility to provide empowerment opportunities to its citizens (such as education) while prohibiting de-empowerment initiatives from opportunity-providers operating within the state. Lastly, progressive taxation follows in minimising cost impact in the funding such initiatives. I'd say these obey three of the key tenets of social justice: equality, the afore-mentioned flattening of the pyramid, and progressive taxation.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Bones-O!

Cheers for the response, Mr FtP. I don't really agree, though, with your view that these opportunities (at least the ones of which I spoke) are pre-social. (I assume you are not extending the definition of 'society' here to pre-civilisation, naturally arising social groups, to which our species has always belonged.) I think society and such opportunities develop hand-in-hand. As soon as there is an authoritative position on justice, which requires such a society, the notion of fairness and so equal opportunities may evolve.

Yes, many opportunities are not available without society and there is a dialectic development of social structure and opportunity that can be considered hand-in-hand development.

But I do not mean that all of these opportunities were available and then people created society in order to exploit them. These opportunities come about this way: the concept of some product, service, or interaction is formulated, from there society is formed in order to provide or consume this. Society does not provide healthcare, for example. Rather all social structures that have arisen around healthcare came about through natural individual desires to provide and have healthcare.

If the opportunities are exploited unequally (i.e. disproportionately), they are neither socially just nor equal opportunities.

You are not speaking of means but of ends. Opportunities are the means, exploitation and use are the ends, and equality in one does not translate to equality in the other.

Consider a scenario where the two of us are stranded on a desert island together. Me, being myopic and unmotivated, quickly throw together a lean-to shelter of palm leaves and set to sleeping my island life away. You, being the industrious of the pair, begin building a sturdy elevated shelter in the cover of trees. Within a couple weeks you have a resilient and safe shelter and I am rebuilding mine every night.

Obviously you have a better position and exploited the resources at hand unequally, yet it would be silly to say that we were not provided with equal opportunity.

Ahh! But natural opportunities are not equal opportunities: they are not within the scope of social justice. Social justice can only be concerned with society-derived opportunities.

There are natural opportunities that are not within the scope of society in general, and even when it is concerned social justice does not directly deal with natural opportunities. In fact, according to my view on it, social justice is more effective the less it interferes in the natural (this is a trend in several topics for me). Like I said, social justice is most concerned in limiting limitations.

With that said, natural opportunities are inherently equal, the people are the unequal component of the equation. And this hits the root of my beliefs on social justice:

People are unequal, and this is not to say that people are better or worse, they are just not the same. People will pursue satisfaction in their own unique way, and will use opportunity in their own unique way. The satisfaction and the path we choose to find fulfillment IS what makes everyone of us a person. It may not be real, we may still be just the mechanics of a deterministic universe, but we understand ourselves as a person by the agency we possess in our actions and thoughts.

To me, the only crime one can commit against another person, and the only crime social justice should be concerned with, is the crime of limiting the process by which one fulfills him or herself as a person.

Not at all. Progressive taxation, for instance, has worked fairly easily in the UK, bar tax avoidance which could be dealt with. Of course, such justice would come at an economic price.

I will actually defend progressive taxation against flat taxation, although I am vehemently opposed to all taxation.

With that said, it is easy to implement programs designed at trying to "level the playing field", but that says nothing about whether they are fair or not.

I wasn't speaking of welfare, but of support to facilitate progress. We have no data on this because we don't do it. I'd much rather spend my tax on someone's education than on someone's 'job seekers allowance'. I agree there is a self-perpetuating aspect to welfare, but this has nothing to do with my point about social programs.

Yes. I understand this.

But even social provision of education leads to standardized education and socially mandated curriculum.