I recently read an article that pointed out that the accepted concept of fairness is not exactly the same as the concept of social justice. It stated that in general when something is considered unfair it is usually because some rule has been violated whereas within the framework of social justice an unfairness can be perceived without a definite rule being broken. This is something that I've noticed when examining my own feelings on the matter of wealth distribution. When someone is upset that a large percent of wealth is concentrated with a small percentage of the population I find myself thinking, "So what? As long as the wealth was gained legitimately and no one was robbed or cheated what does it matter? If a law was broken, don't complain about the distribution of the wealth, go after the law-breaker!" Apparently my sense of fairness is not as developed as the practitioner of social justice is.
Now I've heard the term "social justice" many times and thought I knew what it meant but just to make sure I did a little research on the term.
The simple definition:
The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.
Some sites that elaborate more on the meaning:
http://www.reachandteach.com
http://www.justphilanthropy.org
http://www.sociologyguide.com
Cornel West's social justice wants the love to flow so that poor people will have the same dignity as investment bankers:
http://www.colbertnation.com
Many of the explanations of social justice seem quite reasonable, like insuring equal treatment and opportunity for all people. And helping the poor and making sure no child goes hungry. All admirable goals. Abolition and woman's suffrage are also attributed to the spirit of social justice by some.
Then there are a multitude of other social justice issues that are included, such as:
- Environmental Justice
- Immigration Justice
- Reproductive Justice (which seems to be at odds with Pro-Life Justice)
- Healthcare Justice
- Gender Justice
Apparently you take the issue that matters to you and append the word "Justice" to it to make it a pressing social concern! Some of these issues are very debatable and divisive (like Reproductive Justice) and others seem to revolve around degrees of concern/enforcement, such as care of the environment (better gas mileage or ban the internal combustion engine?).
All of this, as issues taken up by various associations and groups that tackle these things though their own efforts are not a problem for most of us. It's when other peoples vision of "Justice" are looking to be implemented by governmental action that our attention is grabbed. After all, the term "Justice" implies enforcement, does it not?
An article by Michael Novak on Friedrich Hayek's feelings on social justice can be found at
www.firstthings.com. There we find this statement:
"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."
That in a nutshell is my same concern when we see someone pointing out some perceived injustice that has occurred through no breaking of the rules. More from
the same article:
"Hayek made a sharp distinction, however, between those failures of justice that involve breaking agreed–upon rules of fairness and those that consist in results that no one designed, foresaw, or commanded. The first sort of failure earned his severe moral condemnation. No one should break the rules; freedom imposes high moral responsibilities. The second, insofar as it springs from no willful or deliberate act, seemed to him not a moral matter but an inescapable feature of all societies and of nature itself. When labeling unfortunate results as “social injustices” leads to an attack upon the free society, with the aim of moving it toward a command society, Hayek strenuously opposes the term."
Is inequality of results "an inescapable feature of all societies and of nature itself"? Shall the poor be with us always? Or more to the point... is government capable of dispensing this highly subjective sort of justice without itself being unjust?
__________________________________________________
More on the philosophy of social justice can be found by reading the works of
John Rawls. __________________________________________________
I would be remiss to not at least mention the spiritual dimension behind this sort of "justice". In
Deuteronomy 15 you will find specific commands to alleviate poverty in the land. Again, on a personal or voluntary group association level there is no problem here, in fact it's laudable. And to a degree some will say that certain aspects of Deuteronomy are already found in our anti-poverty and bankruptcy laws. Where the difficulty lies is in the implementation by non-believing government officials. The Biblical morals we trust government to enforce, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or kill, are quite straight forward and subject to little interpretation. But determining who is poor, how they shall be helped, & by who is a chore that requires a case by case judgement lest the entire enterprise becomes subverted. Different people will come to this chore with different agendas and we have seen above how the entire concept of social justice is ripe to be expanded into every aspect of life, much of which could be argued carries us far from a Biblical viewpoint.
Point is, if we are to point to the Bible as the authority for implementing social justice then we must be also be prepared to accept Biblical instruction on selecting Godly leaders.
