Social Justice?

[Zymologist]

Social justice seems to also have a lot to do with white privilege, and the henceforth-to-be-eternally-reviled patriarchy, and heterosexual cismale privilege, and so forth. Basically, extreme intolerance and unequal treatment in the name of tolerance and equality.

[KingsGambit]

But we get back to "what's fair"? If I have 3 cars, and a neighbor down the street has none, should it be "fair" that I have to give one of mine to him? Who determines what's "fair"?

Yeah, I don't think that's involved. I think the sort of thing these verses is going after is more along the lines of stealing somebody else's for your own personal use.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I don't think that's involved. I think the sort of thing these verses is going after is more along the lines of stealing somebody else's for your own personal use.

But, again, I don't think Amos has anything to do with "social justice" as it us used today, so I'm not sure why you keep referring to it.

[Carrikature]

I think that "social justice" is an attempt to justify "fairness" ---- rich people should give "their fair share", etc. "Fairness" is a much more 'relative term' than justice is.

Justice as a concept already relies on the concept of fairness. Part of the reason that justice is such an amorphous term is because the ideas that support it are themselves quite amorphous. Most people would probably think it fair that the same level of effort gets the same level of reward, but they might start questioning its fairness if the realization of that goal involved taking things from people who have already succeeded.

From what I have read, seen, it often boils down to the mere wealth redistribution. That somehow Joe down the street had a right to my hard earned money.

I think there are two reasons to this. First, there is a pretty clear trend by conservatives to portray social justice in terms of "they're trying to take things from me" (undoubtedly because that's how they see it). Second, a lot of the current discussions about social justice are topics that require extra funding to realize. Someone who wants all people to have the same level of medical care regardless of socioeconomic status still needs to figure out where the money is going to come from, and that usually means taxing the people that have money. Similarly, raising the minimum wage to a level where every person can have a livable wage translates into higher costs for everyone. Paying scholarships or whatever to aid in education equality still relies on money. The people with the greatest needs are by and large those that don't have the money to pay for what they need in the first place. We only have two options for that: ignore them or take money from people that have it.

[seer]

I think there are two reasons to this. First, there is a pretty clear trend by conservatives to portray social justice in terms of "they're trying to take things from me" (undoubtedly because that's how they see it). Second, a lot of the current discussions about social justice are topics that require extra funding to realize. Someone who wants all people to have the same level of medical care regardless of socioeconomic status still needs to figure out where the money is going to come from, and that usually means taxing the people that have money. Similarly, raising the minimum wage to a level where every person can have a livable wage translates into higher costs for everyone. Paying scholarships or whatever to aid in education equality still relies on money. The people with the greatest needs are by and large those that don't have the money to pay for what they need in the first place. We only have two options for that: ignore them or take money from people that have it.

Yes, and that is pretty much wealth redistribution. I just don't see why it is fair to take my hard earned money to pay for Joe's college.

[Carrikature]

But we get back to "what's fair"? If I have 3 cars, and a neighbor down the street has none, should it be "fair" that I have to give one of mine to him? Who determines what's "fair"?

'Fair' ends up being determined by the majority in a system like ours. One of the tradeoffs of having a voice is being forced to listen to everyone else's.

Social justice seems to also have a lot to do with white privilege, and the henceforth-to-be-eternally-reviled patriarchy, and heterosexual cismale privilege, and so forth. Basically, extreme intolerance and unequal treatment in the name of tolerance and equality.

One of the things I find frustrating is how much certain concepts get lumped together. You're right, of course, that a lot of social justice turns into the sort of rhetoric you've mentioned. Some of that is probably bleed-over from the same people championing other causes. Some if it, though, is going to be due to how socioeconomic status still trends towards certain racial distributions. To be honest, I don't think many of the social justice champions have realized yet that there's always unfairness somewhere, it's just a question of where. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do realize it but don't care as long as certain people get the short end of the stick.

[Cow Poke]

'Fair' ends up being determined by the majority in a system like ours.

Not necessarily. It could, currently, be determined by presidential executive order, even against the will of the majority.

[Zymologist]

I think all SJW's need to recognize yet another, insidious form of oppression, intolerance, and inequality: pretty privilege. People who are naturally unattractive (for example, the posters in this thread), are discriminated against and heavily disadvantaged in our society. This is oppression, plain and simple.

Attractive people need to check their privilege.

[Carrikature]

Yes, and that is pretty much wealth redistribution. I just don't see why it is fair to take my hard earned money to pay for Joe's college.

At the end of the day, I think the consideration becomes what is most fair. There are areas where it may not be fair at all, like your example, and there may be areas like social health where the 'greater good' trumps the individual. Part of the trick is going to involved deciding which things are needs and which things are wants. It's in everyone's best interest to have an educated voter base, but education doesn't have to include college.

Not necessarily. It could, currently, be determined by presidential executive order, even against the will of the majority.

I'm not interested in going there.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not interested in going there.

so?

[Truthseeker]

I think "social justice" usually calls for the government to change this or that aspect of society to meet some end or goal. Minimum wages; equal health care for all; gun bans; rent controls; etc. It's just a buzz phrase used for political purposes. Of course the Law of Unintended Consequences apply. The poor don't really benefit from the "enforcement" of any particular social justice law. Injustice can occur. Is it not often that one votes for government benefits for oneself? Doesn't the commandment not to steal apply here?

Have you seen the related news that now more than 1/2 of Amurrikans live at least part-time off the government's teats?

[pancreasman]

I think we're confusing the principle of social justice with the means to achieve that end. Social Justice as a principle is deeply Biblical.

Isaiah 1:17 - Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Jeremiah 22:3 - Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

Proverbs 31:9 - Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Psalms 82:3 - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 - Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

James 1:27 - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Isaiah 58:6-12 - [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

And many more. In fact many theologians argue that God has a bias towards the poor, His 'anawein'.

We can certainly argue about the effectiveness of various strategies of achieving social justice but we cannot doubt that it is a cause close to God's heart.

[Cow Poke]

I think we're confusing the principle of social justice with the means to achieve that end. Social Justice as a principle is deeply Biblical.

Isaiah 1:17 - Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Jeremiah 22:3 - Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

Proverbs 31:9 - Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Psalms 82:3 - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 - Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

James 1:27 - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Isaiah 58:6-12 - [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

And many more. In fact many theologians argue that God has a bias towards the poor, His 'anawein'.

We can certainly argue about the effectiveness of various strategies of achieving social justice but we cannot doubt that it is a cause close to God's heart.

Good point. And there's a difference between an individual ascribing to "social justice" on biblical grounds, and the government enacting laws to enforce it.

Part of the reason we are encouraged to assist the poor is that it's good for US to do it. Being forced to do it against our will doesn't have the same blessing, and can easily be abused.

[pancreasman]

Good point. And there's a difference between an individual ascribing to "social justice" on biblical grounds, and the government enacting laws to enforce it.

Part of the reason we are encouraged to assist the poor is that it's good for US to do it. Being forced to do it against our will doesn't have the same blessing, and can easily be abused.

I mean no offence but I find this a peculiarly American sentiment that posits that the government is always in a position against us and never representing our collective will. When the government enacts child labor laws, I see it representing the democratic will at its best. I do not feel my freedom curtailed. I want people to be prosecuted who oppress children.

[Cow Poke]

I mean no offence but I find this a peculiarly American sentiment that posits that the government is always in a position against us and never representing our collective will.

That's not what I believe. I just don't trust our government to do things equitably. They can't pass a bill without attaching all kinds of "gimme" to it.

When the government enacts child labor laws, I see it representing the democratic will at its best.

Certainly!

I do not feel my freedom curtailed.

Neither do I.

I want people to be prosecuted who oppress children.

Absolutely.