Social Justice?

[Adrift]

And I'm saying that it is not a Biblical precedent for humans deciding on their own to take what is one person's to give to another.

The rest of your post seems not relevant to what I'm saying.

I think the rest of my post was relevant to what you are saying, specifically the third paragraph. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a Biblical precedent for humans deciding on their own to do any of the things that Christians routinely fight for in America. Pro-life, anti-euthanasia, traditional marriage proponency, and a number of other moral law that Christians are for are based on our belief that God desires these things. Why should Christians expect non-Christian members in a secular society to conform to some views that we believe God mandates for his people, but not others?

I'm convinced the primary reason has more to do with our politics than it does our religion. For a lot of people the line has already been drawn based on their party allegiance. These guys stand over here, and these guys stand over here, and that's just the way it is.

[Joel]

I think the rest of my post was relevant to what you are saying, specifically the third paragraph. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a Biblical precedent for humans deciding on their own to do any of the things that Christians routinely fight for in America. Pro-life, anti-euthanasia, traditional marriage proponency, and a number of other moral law that Christians are for are based on our belief that God desires these things.

Why should Christians expect non-Christian members in a secular society to conform to some views that we believe God mandates for his people, but not others?

They shouldn't. I'm a libertarian. This objection of yours doesn't apply to me or my argument.

But suppose a Christian political activist such as you describe also used my argument. And suppose the things you list here make that person hypocritical for using the argument. That doesn't make the argument unsound. Though it might have implications regarding their larger political philosophy.

[Adrift]

They shouldn't. I'm a libertarian. This objection of yours doesn't apply to me or my argument.

But suppose a Christian political activist such as you describe also used my argument. And suppose the things you list here make that person hypocritical for using the argument. That doesn't make the argument unsound. Though it might have implications regarding their larger political philosophy.

It doesn't make what argument unsound? The argument that there is no Biblical precedent for humans instating some sort of Judeo-Christian ethic on a secular society? I'm sure the Christian political activist/ethicist has a number of good reasons for finding that unsound. Perhaps they find Biblical precedence for mixing faith in politics in passages like Matthew 5:14-16 or Romans 13:1-7. That's probably a debate for another thread though.

[KingsGambit]

lilpix: You've repeatedly brought up the impracticality of the Jubilee debt cancellation, which seems like a sound reason not to implement it as modern policy. But it does raise the question: What do you make of its inclusion in the biblical canon as a past precedent nonetheless (even if it was never actually implemented)? It seems to me all Sam was doing was raising this very question, not actually calling for its reinstitution today.

[lilpixieofterror]

lilpix: You've repeatedly brought up the impracticality of the Jubilee debt cancellation, which seems like a sound reason not to implement it as modern policy. But it does raise the question: What do you make of its inclusion in the biblical canon as a past precedent nonetheless (even if it was never actually implemented)? It seems to me all Sam was doing was raising this very question, not actually calling for its reinstitution today.

I don't think it is so much as unpractical as such a law would have consequences upon its application. Something Sam wants to ignore. What sort of things, would such a law bring about?

[KingsGambit]

I don't think it is so much as unpractical as such a law would have consequences upon its application. Something Sam wants to ignore. What sort of things, would such a law bring about?

Right, I think we both see what would practically result given the selfishness of human nature.

But what I mean to ask is why you think it was nonetheless commanded by God... whether it was just as a mirror to demonstrate God's intentions for human ethics?

[lilpixieofterror]

Right, I think we both see what would practically result given the selfishness of human nature.

But what I mean to ask is why you think it was nonetheless commanded by God... whether it was just as a mirror to demonstrate God's intentions for human ethics?

Only fools don't consider the consequences of the laws they put into place and God is no fool. Bankers wouldn't last very long if they just gave money away and didn't collect on it and I'm sure the same would apply to the ancient equivalents too. Fairness needs to exist on both ends of the scale, the person making the deal and the person backing the deal. I don't see things like the forgiveness of debt, not being taken into account when a deal was made and there's nothing in the Bible that tells us otherwise. While it does mention that you should help your neighbor in need, even if a jubilee is near, there's differences between helping your needy neighbor and just handing out goods.

[kiwimac]

I would consider that, at least for me, the sine qua non of a definition is found in Luke 4: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, 19 to announce the year of the Lord's favor." and in Matthew 25: 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

[Joel]

Some thoughts going back to the original topic of the thread (the nature of social justice, and justice):

Much earlier in this thread it was objected that historically there has been no consensus on what justice means and that it means whatever you want it to mean.
But I think that until fairly recent history there was a broad consensus. For millennia thinkers seemed to agree that justice meant each person possessing and controlling that which is his. It was elaborated that this means not injuring/encroaching upon another's person or property, fulfilling contracts and not stealing through fraud.

Many who use the term "social justice" seem to equate it with the Christian duty of charity. Often the terminology is used to create the idea that this charity is owed as a subset of justice, the same as one is obligated to repay a debt. The problem with that is that doing justice (such as in repaying a debt) is not being charitable; it is just what is owed by justice. Thus making charity into a kind of justice ends up eliminating the possibility of charity altogether.

On the contrary, it is wise to acknowledge both that (1) charity requires that you be just, as a prerequisite to being charitable, and (2) charity goes beyond justice. Instead of thinking that charity is a subset of justice.


"Social justice" also usually refers to the statistical distribution of wealth, with some egalitarian ideas about what certain statistics about it (e.g. gini coefficient) ought to be. Which would imply that things ought to change so as to improve those statistics.

If we are talking about voluntary change, then this would, if anything, fall into the category of charity, and runs into the above problems regarding trying to classify it as a kind of justice.

On the other hand if it is coerced change, then it contradicts justice, which forbids theft--taking what is someone else's. And it then cannot be charity either, because charity requires justice as a prerequisite.

Usually these problems seem to be left unaddressed, and instead the advocates of "social justice" speak as if all goods belonged to some central distributor, thus assuming away existing ownership and thus assuming away justice.

The focus on what the statistics ought to be ignores the particulars--the particular differences between persons, and their differing deserts and entitlements. Thus ignoring (or assuming away) justice altogether. So "social justice" is, again, not a kind of justice.

This concern with statistics rather than particulars often also ends up ignoring actual poverty. Mexico, for instance has much less wealth inequality than the U.S., but the richest 10% in Mexico are significantly poorer than the poorest 10% in the U.S. Wealth inequality could be easily reduced in the U.S. by increasing poverty (and vice versa) So it would seem that wealth egalitarianism is not a kind of charity either, and may not even be a kind of morality.

[Carrikature]

Interesting news out of Croatia that seems relevant to the Jubilee discussions.

[Adrift]

Interesting news out of Croatia that seems relevant to the Jubilee discussions.

Yeah, read about this the other day. Helps that its such a small country, and the stipulations for those who can apply is pretty narrow, but should be interesting to see the results.

[Joel]

Interesting news out of Croatia that seems relevant to the Jubilee discussions.

Seems like the possibility of this happening again will make it difficult to impossible for poor people to borrow money, and interest rates on such loans will increase to cover that risk.

[KingsGambit]

Those Christians who decry the Jubilee as economic suicide: How do you account for the fact that it nonetheless is in the Bible?

[Mountain Man]

Again, it's establishing identity. The redistribution of land is a form of redistribution of wealth. Land is a subset of wealth. Therefore, if Jubilee requires a redistribution of land, Jubilee requires a redistribution of wealth. This isn't circular reasoning, it's establishing identity (or equality) of terms.

If you agree that P1 is true, you're going to believe that C1 is true. The other premises are there to establish the relationship between a concrete term (debt, slaves, land) and an abstract term (wealth). So if you agree that Jubilee required the list in P1, you must agree that Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

"A form of redistribution of wealth". That phrase says to me that you're falsely equivocating between Old Testament law and how wealth redistribution is understood today (forcibly taking from those who have earned, without compensation, and indiscriminately giving to those who have not earned).

[Sam]

"A form of redistribution of wealth". That phrase says to me that you're falsely equivocating between Old Testament law and how wealth redistribution is understood today (forcibly taking from those who have earned, without compensation, and indiscriminately giving to those who have not earned).

Then you're not paying the least attention because Jubilee explicitly is about "forcibly taking from those who have earned, without compensation, and indiscriminately giving to those who have not earned."

If you can't glean at least that clear truth from Jubilee law, you can't expect to understand this thread.

--Sam