"Social Justice"

OK, what's the difference between social justice and.......justice?

Justice is about the equality of all under the law.

Social Justice is about equal outcomes.

They are incompatible. To ensure equal outcomes, equality under the law must be replaced with legal double standards. For those who disagree (and I'm sure there are those among us), please provide examples.

Thank you.

Bump the f*** up. Let's hear it. Justify your s***.

Justice = the right to attorney
Social Justice= getting the attorney you can afford

Social Justice is a process silly and not an outcome!

i am wondering if social justice is the news medias work.

A process to do what? How is it different than simple justice? Example please.




The media doesn't invent PC s*** like this, they just provide cover for it. "The White House press release said, blah blah blah, so there you have it."

You are the one that stated it was about equal outcomes.

No they aren't. There are plenty of beliefs about social justice that don't involve equality of outcome. Take, for example, probably the biggest proponent of Social Justice in American Philosophy, John Rawls, he argued for equality of opportunity and was clearly talking a out social justice.

Being equal in the eyes of the law is not equality of opportunity, and social justice does not apply to simply equality of outcome.

I find it interesting that you are asking for people who disagree with your position to provide examples for their opinion yetuou haven't given one for yours.

Fortunately for us the part of your argument which is incorrect (IMO) is the premise, not the conclusion.

Oh I thought this was going to be a film sequel to the Social Network, where a group of online users use Facebook (or other such social networks) to fight internet crime, sitting at home in their super hero costumes and form the Social Justice League.

Imagine my disappointment

*Takes Spiderman costume off*

Yes......?




Yes, equality of opportunity has been and still is a problem. But when we work toward achieving it, we are merely fighting for simple justice against injustice. Inevitably, if they tack on the label "social" justice, it's with an eye on working toward trying to implement equality of outcomes.



Justice does include equality of opportunity. The U.S. Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts addressed those issues. That's why I asked for an example, I don't think you can name one where inequality opportunity cannot be equated with simple justice.

Now an argument can be made for social justice where it means a necessary adjustment in social attitudes and even the application of social pressure to work against prejudice and even hatred. But those aren't issues that can be legally remedied, which is exactly what the Left wants to make it and is what is commonly understood by the term today. When we cross the line into legislating attitude, we become a nation of thought police.



So racial quotas, Section 8 housing, or, the biggie, redistribution of wealth, aren't attempts to implement "social justice"? They're attempts to legislate equality of outcomes.



I didn't invent the term, especially where a legal remedy is mandated, the Left did. Therefore it's up to them (you) to explain the need for it. If you want to use my legit use of the term that I mentioned above, fine, but now you gotta get rid of all a that baggage that's been added to it before it's usable as such; which is inevitably much more difficult than simply coining a new term for it. (Re: marriage)

kinda like on "good morning vietnam" when the news is made ready for broadcast?

You DO realize that different people prescribe to different definitions of both the words 'justice' and 'social justice' right?

I don't think you know what social justice encompasses. Fighting for equality of opportunity is social justice and the form of social justice most often seen and strived for by liberal/left political parties, philosophers and institutions.

Thanks for posting that. I'd forgotten how good that movie was--his best by far with him at the top of his game.




What good does it do to have different definitions, if indeed that's the case. Of course that's what the left tries to do all the time, changing definitions and concepts via political correctness. In any case, where do you disagree with what I've said if we restrict ourselves to people attempting to use some sort of common definitions--which is sort of necessary if we're actually attempting to communicate. Talk about a Tower of English Babel.




Not it isn't, not when you slam equality in the face with the afore mentioned racial quotas/set asides, section 8 housing (how did I forget "affordable housing" that's trashed our county's economy) and wealth redistribution--leftist programs all.

Perhaps you should start a thread about racial quotas etc rather than on social justice. Just because people tag these things as being social justice doesn't mean they represent what Social Justice actually is.