Talk:Social justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Creation and Improvement Drive Social justice was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 13 May 2007.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.


Contents

[edit] Solution?

Doesn't promoting inter-faith and inter-religious marriages solve social injustices? Known 06:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 talk

What is David Cobbs postion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what needs to be done for resolution?

Come on. An argument could be made that the entire article is a "buzz" article. Your comment lacks meaning. Also, why delete the link? There is a ton of criticism on Hayek and "social justice"!!!! I will post it accordingly. Please explain your editing decisioins in this discussion forum. (68.47.165.126 14:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

I really liked reading the content of this page before, it makes me have a mushy warm feeling in my tummy, and I'd be sad to see it deteriorate. Maybe I'm paranoid, but throughout wikipedia I often see intellectual-property motivated edits, to make wikipedia rot and succumb, because it's a free, non-pay site, so that some pay-site could be put in its place, and fully controlled and dominated by a few, instead of it being owned by everyone, free to everyone. Yes, some vandalism edits are just mere pranks, which don't bother me much - some middle school kid getting an ego trip while researching his school-topic, that are easily reverted, so what - but the premeditated intentional edits piss me off, especially that have fully dedicated offsite links - instead of just spur of moment vandalism edits, that even I can giggle at, tee hee, before reverting back to normal. I tossed my 2 cents into this, added an opinion if you will, but if you want to revert my reverts, fine, I won't join an edit war, the worst that will happen is that I will remove this page from my watchlist and stop reading it, and hopefully someone else with good sense will come by, and fix up the page where it's nice and readable again, should it deteriorate too much, so that I'll start reading it again. In case I'm way off base in this view, too paranoid, then forgive me, I did not mean to offend you if you had good intentions, I'm just doing my share of spur-of-the-moment make-wikipedia-a-better-place edits as they come to me. Sillybilly 20:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Why call my additions "vandalism"? Because you have decided they are "premeditated intentional edits" as opposed to, what, spontaneous unintentional edits??? I did not plan for weeks in advance to write a short paragraph on social justice. (But so what if I did?) I simply came across the wikipedia entry, read it, and contributed a small paragraph and a free scholarly article on the subject. Intentional? Yes, I did intentionally make those edits. Premeditated? What is that even supposed to mean. Seriously, I find it difficult to believe either of my edits (the short series of questions and a link to a free scholarly article) could be mistaken for "vandalism". I would have to say that you are off base. But since you asked, I forgive you. All I was asking for was a reasonable explanation for the deletion of what I beleive to be a legitimate (if not valuable) contribution to the social justice article.(68.47.165.126 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
Ultimately everything comes down to consensus. You, or even I, might be a genius misunderstood in his own epoch, and therefore very lonely in our opinions if we disagree with the majority, but such things as wikipedia come down to majority opinion as to what constitutes "reasonable" and "unreasonable" additions. I toss in my 2 cents, you do too, but I don't engage in a "no it's not true, yes it is, no it's not true, yes it is too" type of kindergarten-fight, I wait for others to pitch in. Even if I'm absolutely right but everyone around me disagrees with me, hey, that's what matters, in a democracy majority "opresses" the minority, in a sense, and you could say that wikipedia belongs to the majority, to the general population, however wrong that majority might be, and not to some fringe sect made up for 3 members or a single member, however right that minority may be. I'm always glad if I find that other people feel the same way as I do, and we can agree on some common denominator of what's right and what's wrong, and we don't have to deal with conflict. Worst comes to worst I could be shut out of the mainstream opinion, and even decide not to read wikipedia, and retain some inner freedom that's slightly diminished by not being able to read what I like to read on the page I like to read, but that's such an itsy-bitsy sacrifice, if I'm allowed to be, the way I want to be, in my own home, my own private life, in my own domain, even if it's different or opposing to the majority's way to be. Hey, it's not like a religious attack of "convert to my religion now or die", "give up your customs or language now or die", "accept this way to be or die", it's not like a personal thing. As far as what consitutes me, a wikipedia article is a very fringe part of it, or at least should be, I shouldn't get too attached to it becase I only own 1/6 billionth of it, and 1/6 billionth belongs to every other person on the planet, if we want to carve it up evenly. Hey, let's not get too attached to it, it's only a wikipedia article that belongs to the public and not to me or you, not to any individual but to the public, and either way the public decides should be fine, for both of us, at least that's how I feel and hope you agree. Sillybilly 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You are silly. Look, you have to give an explanation for why you remove content in an article. You have failed to do that. Explain to me why you have removed the link to Sam Gidin’s article and not the other links. Explain why you delete some text and not other text. Honestly, I feel like someone is playing a joke on me. (68.47.165.126 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

You wrote:

Social justice has to be thought of on many different levels but it crucially relates to the concept of totality and the dynamic nature of our societies. For example, how do you explain the change that occured durring the 20th century. What force directed this change? How was order maintained? Was it democratic? How does the change relate to the values modern societies claim to have? What social "problems" were overcome and which ones still persist? Classism, racism, sexism, environmental degradation? What forces keep us from "solving" these problems? What would an ideal society look like? Does our own thinking of these problems prevent such an overcoming?

Why does social justice have to be thought of as anything? It may be thought of as many things, each of which will have their own explanations and justifications. If you wish to offer one thought as crucial, what are your reasons and what is the verifiable authority for elevating this view above all less crucial views? Then you begin to argue with the reader. How does the reader do this or explain that. You are offering your own POV without any properly constructed argument. This is not to deny that there are detailed critiques of each school of thought. There are many different theories. You are welcome to contribute to this and any other page but, if you wish to do so, you must adopt a balanced NPOV stance. You have not, and so your material was removed. If you wish to offer a reworded version for people to consider, please enter it here for discussion. David91 03:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this makes much more sense. A reasonable explanation was all I was looking for (something beyond the use of "buzzwords"). Thank you. BUT STILL, I have to ask, why were the links removed? What is the criteria for that (especially when considering the content of the existing links that were not removed)? (68.47.165.126 05:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

You wrote:

Social Justice and Social Change
If social justice means anything it would have to mean that the direction of societal change corresponds to the prevailing values societies claim to hold (ie a rational society). The history of the 20th century contradicts the values our societies claim to uphold (ie a irrational society). For example, classism, sexism, racism, and environmental degradation persist as social problems, contradicting the notion of equality, democracy, and freedom (ie social justice). A just society would be a society in which all members would agree to the order of that society as well as the processes unfolding within it. It would entail overcoming alienated social conditions (see Marx's Capital).

Forgive me, but there is much that I do not understand about this new version. Are you proposing a definition of social justice or commenting that what are accepted as norms of social justice must evolve to match or to drive the cultural values currently accepted by the contextual society. What definition of rationality are you using (references please)? There are one hundred years of history involving more than one hundred nations, so which particular piece of history are you relying on to demonstrate irrationality? What is "classism"? What is the "notion of equality"? And how does the one contradict the other? What links these four including racism and environmental degradation: the common denominator eludes me. Is this a second definition of social justice, i.e. "the notion of equality, democracy, and freedom" and if so, what is its relationship to the first apparent definition? Is this definition of a "just society" different to the definition of social justice? And where exactly does Marx say that social justice overcomes social conditions? Sorry to be so lacking in understanding. Please humour me with an explanation. David91 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since you asked, I will forgive you (too, as I did with SillyBilly) and will “humour” you with a response.
I suppose I am proposing a critical working definition of “social justice” (merely a start, in which participants in wikipedia could validate). One that does not suggest that “what are accepted as norms of social justice must evolve to match or to drive the cultural values currently accepted by the contextual society” (this seems illogical, a step below irrational) but one involving the reconciliation of the contradictory values espoused in what is called “modern society” (a historically specific social order and process, hence, the talk about change above), where Enlightenment ideals (equality, freedom, and democracy) are “projected” as the goals of society and are simultaneously undermined by an economic system that is based on and reinforces structural inequalities (ie ideological racism, sexism, and classism – see classism.org, “Classism is the systematic assignment of characteristics of worth and ability based on social class. It includes individual attitudes and behaviors; systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes, resulting in drastic income and wealth inequality; the rationale that supports these systems and this unequal valuing; and the culture that perpetuates them.” Along with environmental degradation).
The way I see it, “social justice” involves increasing human agency and actualizing democratic normative ideals that are at the heart of the “social contract” between society and state, or what should be a “rational society”. By rational I mean the means/end relationship, or “purposive rational action”, derived from Weber. I shall “humour” you with some quotes from the Protestant Work Ethic:
“The aim of a man’s life is indeed moneymaking, but this is no longer merely the means to the end of satisfying the material needs of life. This reversal (incomprehensible to the superficial observer) of what we might call the “natural” state of affairs is a definite leitmotiv of capitalism, although it will always be alien to anyone who is untouched by capitalisms aura (12).”
It [capitalism] obviously had first to come into being, and not just in individuals, but as an attitude held in common by groups of people. The origin of the attitude is what needs to be explained (13)…We shall use the expression “spirit of capitalism” for that attitude which, in the pursuit of a calling, strives systematically for profit for its own sake in the manner exemplified by Benjamin Franklin (19).
Business, with its ceaseless work, had quite simply become “indispensable to their [those with the "spirit of capitalism" attitude] life.” That is in fact their only true motivation, and it expresses at the same time the irrational element of this way of conducting one’s life, whereby a man exists for his business, not vice versa (23)…He “gets nothing out of” his wealth for his own purpose—other than the irrational sense of “fulfilling his vocation”(24)…Economic rationalization means the increased productivity of labor (26).
Today’s capitalist economic order is a monstrous cosmos, into which the individual is born and which in practice is for him, at least as an individual, simply a given, an immutable shell, in which he is obliged to live. It forces on the individual, to the extent that he is caught up in the relationships of the “market,” the norms of its economic activity.
Nothing is ever “irrational,” in itself, but only from a particular “rational” point of view. For the irreligious man every religious conduct of life is “irrational,” and for the hedonist every ascetic conduct of life is “irrational,” even if it should be a “rationalization” when measured by its ultimate value. If it helps to achieve anything at all, I should like this essay to help to reveal the multifaceted nature of the seemingly unambiguous concept of the “rational”.
You may also want to take a look at Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action if you get access to the library again.
Now, “social justice” fits within this modern framework. But the post-modernist deny such a framework. For example, according to Foucault (for which there is debate about whether or not he is indeed a “post-modernist” or “post-structuralist” or neither, but I’ll side step that for now) “the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it (see “Human Nature: Justice versus Power” the link I provided in the external links section).”
Now, the post-modernists are in contrast with Marx, who believes that “alienation”, or the type of relationship or split between individual and society, can be overcome. As Istvan Meszaros (1970) claims in his book “Marx’s Theory of Alienation”, “the “transcendence of alienation” is an inherently historical concept which envisages the successful accomplishment of a process leading to a qualitatively different state of affairs.” (see Marx's Theory of Alienation) I'll leave it at that.
And, finally, to quote Marx:
The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour, which is determined by necessity and external goals, ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production…Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized humans, the associated producers, rationally regulating their material interchange with Nature, brining it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by a blind force; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. (Capital, vol. 3, p. 820)

Again, just a start. (68.47.165.126 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Most interesting. Thank you for taking the time to begin explaining your point of view and for pointing me to Classism (there is always something more to learn). I most certainly did not anticipate this information as the source of your proposed insert. Since you mention Habermas, I suppose your phrase, "a critical working definition" is a Critical Theory/Critique definition in the spirit of the Frankfurt School (?). So what "society" or "societies" are we going to talk about? I used the phrase "contextual societies" because I did not want to be specific either in terms of history, geography or politics. In India, for example, the Varna caste system has been in operation for two thousand or more years. As Westerners dedicated to the ideals of cultural imperialism (see Said's Orientalism as an analysis), we could apply our value system and claim, inter alia, that the system generally and the abuse of the Dalits in particular are against our norms of social justice. But what are the evolutionary or revolutionary processes that produce societal change? If the primary drivers are endogenous, exogenous judgments are irrelevant as the British discovered when they ruled the subcontinent. And since this caste system has survived for so long (see Foucault on the notion of institutionalised pouvoir) presumably it appears relatively rational and socially just to those who control the discourse and manipulate the power mechanisms within that society.

Hence, I am not interested in a page on social justice that adopts a particular point of view, although balanced pluralism is more than welcome. I am more than happy to work with you to produce an element that argues whether Marxism or Critical Theory has made a significant contribution to the debate on what constitutes social justice. Indeed, with little work, some of what you have written above could comfortably be included. I think the best place to insert new material along these lines would either be in the last paragraph on the Rawlsian view or under "Observations" or under a new heading on Critical Theory. However, the text you have actually inserted is neither clear in its meaning nor balanced in its point of view. I have therefore moved it to the "Criticism" section for the time being. To some extent, I will rely on you since I am largely bed-ridden and must rely on my increasingly fallible memory (and what I can find on the net). I therefore invite you to propose text for insertion on this page. And this includes amendments to the existing text if you feel that it could be improved. David91 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I use the concept “critical” in the spirit of “Critical Theory”, but a spirit not necessarily exclusive to the Frankfurt School (ie feminism, post-colonialism, post-strucuralist, even some post-modernist share a similar spirit). The societies to be critical of are “modern societies”, for which most of the world could be categorized, though the level or degree of “modernity” may vary from place to place. (Of course, a debate concerning the viability of the concept “modern” is in order). So, in India “traditional values” are in obvious conflict with “modern ones”, more so than say the United States where the Protestant Work Ethic took stronger hold, where the modern “assimilated” traditional inequalities such as patriarchy and racism to itself. Now, we are at the dawn of “globalization”- understood to be one the most terrific revolutions since the Industrial or French. As such, “national identities” are undergoing transformation. A good question is: do we live in a global society?. If so, from a point of view in line with the US Constitution, it cannot possibly be democratic (but these are normative ideals for which globalization is in conflict with). If it were democratic then India would be able to resolve the tensions between its caste system and the processes of “globalization”, in particular the rationalization (see above) of its economic system (see the contemporary debate on “outsourcing”) From a “critical” POV, “social justice” would have to (have to!) mean the reconciliation of “facts and values” (necessity and freedom). You say that India “appears relatively rational and socially just to those who control the discourse and manipulate the power mechanisms within that society.” One could also say that it appears just to those who are dominated by it (ie a President’s constituents may be the victims of power mechanisms. Of course, “victims” implies a value judgement). But what is the reality? And are we alienated from it? For example, if we would want to feed all the hungry people in the world (ie a value) why would we not be able to (ie the facts)? And why would we want to live in a world where hungry people were not simply allowed to die but were taken care of (ie a just/rational society)? These questions, reveal the essence of "modern society". The contradictions between facts and values.
I have read the wiki policy on POV and understand what you mean now. My insert did not adhere to the NPOV value. As such, I will resubmit my contribution in this discussion in due time and with your help insert it as neutral as possible into the article. My arguments with sillybilly were to derive (unconsciously, I must admit) an understanding of the values he would claim to hold and measure that to the facts (deletion of some text and not others). I appreciate our exchange. I would not have been able to figure that out or have written the above with out it (or have structured the thought). Thanks for the help and take care of yourself.

You are most welcome to Wiki. Any time you feel you need guidance, let me know. All the best. David91 10:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

"Social Justice" is a theory that is far from universally accepted. To many, it is a bald attempt to elevate entitlements into the realm of "rights", and dispenses with the concept of equality before the law in favor of preferential treatment towards favored groups or individuals. Some discussion of this would improve the article. Is this acceptable?


It's not a theory, it's a term used to convey an egalitarian view of the world. Having enough food, clothing, shelter and protection from harm are hardly entitlements, and people who have carried the burden of centuries of genocide, enslavement, domination and oppression deserve more than being told by people who already gained wealth, status and power through "preferential treatment towards favored groups or individuals" that preferential treatment is unjust. -AdmiralBlur


social justice is often a term that is used very broadly and i think is a bit hard to define. i agree with AdmiralBlur, social justice is not a theory. my perception of social justice is exactly opposite of it dismissing equality for preferential treatment. the point is to correct inequality and injustices. though i would imagine people in favor of issues that fall under social justice would have a different concept of it than those who disagree with those issues. the definition of social justice should probably adequately cover both sides.--Datajunkie 07:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Seems to me social justice is not purely a party political green concept. The article should be merged with Global Green Charter. Or should have Global Green Charter in its title. Laurel Bush 12:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC).

"Having enough food, clothing, shelter and protection from harm are hardly entitlements"
They are entitlements if they are provided by someone else against their will. If I needed it I would hope someone would help, but of their own choosing and not by force through the tax code.
It seems to me that the concept of social justice applied to the board game "Scrabble" would be that; you have different players with different skills. Some players also put in more effort and look longer at their letters to make longer words, but social justice applies only if every player winds up at the end of every game with the exact same score. This world view only works on black boards on college campuses and never in the real world. To many people social justice is an excuse to infringe on people's property rights (ie Mises.org ). -Ronwan

It's ironic to cite the example of a game when criticising a body of thought as not applicable to the real world. Your analogy is flawed. Social justice is not necessarily communism. Not all "players" can actually enter into the "game" if they are, for example, starving or subjugated to thinly veiled servitude. Neither can all players continue playing if some can deny others of certain necessities. Also, there are no verified absolute win or loose scenarios, reality is assumed as continuous, and a score has undefined value when a player leaves the game permanently. We don't even need to go into whether skill and merit are properly rewarded or the possibility of cheating.
Social justice ideas have influenced the policies of virtually every government in the industrialized world. Even those countries with the most liberal economic policies implement some basic programs. --Vector4F 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because you are starving and I am not does not give you a right to my money. Similarly, just because I am rich and you are poor does not mean that I am denying you wealth. Fortunes are made and lost by the efforts of individuals; those that have not are those that have not achieved. Life is indeed very much like a game... 'players' that cannot successfully compete lose, and stop 'playing'. Yes, this sometimes means the death of those who fail. Even so, this does not permit them to steal. Nor, by extension, does this allow them to designate someone else (ie: government) to steal for you (ie: progressive income tax to fund welfare). Endovior 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social justice is a theory!

Social justice is explictly a theory accepted by political philosophers. Sadly, the name has been hijacked by politicians who use its emotive qualities for their own purposes so, since this should be neutral, it must start from John Rawls to establish the conceptual framework. If it is considered appropriate to go on to look at some of the real world distortions, there are many to choose from. David91 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Rawls page?

I deplore that this entry has now been turned into a John Rawls page. Yes, he is definetely important, but the entry should not start with him, but with a more common definition of social justice and only later give thim as the "theoretician" of social justice. Many information is now merged into the Rawls theory thing. This blurs the line between different conceptions about social justice - and there was such a concept before Rawls, wasn't there? Str1977 08:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many attempts to define social justice in abstract terms over time. I selected Rawls because he would be regarded as the major contributor to the continuing debate over the last thirty years. I would have no objection to other philosophers from Aristotle and Plato onwards being included in a neutral examination of what constitutes social justice. The problem I had with the direction of the proposed entry was that it seemed to be randomly picking political usages by different political parties without any attempt being made to establish an intellectual framework for the concept. I consider it intellectually lazy to do no more than list who said what and to critique statements outside their context. So, if the consensus is that I have overemphasised Rawls, I am happy to produce a different introduction identifying trends in the philosophical analysis of the concept or, if you all prefer, I'll wander off and think about something else. What does the Wiki world say? David91 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no, David, no need to wander off. I appreciate your posts on Rawls. I just think that he should not be heading the entry. It should go like: 1) a standard, general explanation of the topic 2) and then you can put in Rawls as one of the main philosopher on the topic. 3) Other approaches that are now too much merged into the Rawls field. Str1977 10:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have now written a completely new set of opening paragraphs but I don't want to hog the limelight, so I shall step back to allow everyone else to pitch in. David91 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Two weeks have gone by. I for one, David, am very pleased with this article, although I'm not qualified to approve or disapprove of its content. I've stopped in occasionally just to see if you've dotted all your tees and crossed all your eyes, lol. Maybe a comma here and hyphen there as well. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of it all :)). I've learned a lot. RogerK, 9 June 2005

"What Justice is not a social action?" I find this statement/question, under the heading "Criticism" and categorized as a belief, to be out of place under any heading in this article . Does anyone else feel this way? RogerK, 9 June 2005

Thank you for commending my punctuation. I started off in school with a slate and chalk under the care of a fierce lady who insisted that every letter be properly formed and that every semi-colon should have a point. I have not involved myself with much of the material that was already present on the page when I arrived. It all seemed a bit contentious. As to the line you have identitifed, I offer the opinion that, as framed, it is not a criticism of the "notion" of justice as alleged. Actually, I think it a rallying cry for more justice. But then, at my age, I frequently misunderstand what people are saying. -David91 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been lurking for a while, and previously every time I thought I saw an area where I could make constructive changes, I waited a few days and someone else got around to it first. I want to mull some things over and review some texts before I plunge into this, but I believe there is room for some refinement here. The trick is to dignify critiques of social justice yet not to simultaneously dignify propaganda (for example, the notion that funding humanitarian programs is "penalizing" or that decelerating an ongoing concentration of wealth necessarily constitutes "favouratism," [as opposed to being a remedy for corruption and preferential treatment of entrenched elites.]) Obviously critiques must be presented in the interest of balance, yet some of what I read in that section is simply at odds with hard empirical data (for example, is it really true that attempts to improve public health through medical socialization/nationalization or improve childhood nutrition through robust social services are "expensive and always fail," or should we make some effort to let reality constrain that type of bold ideological assertion?) I may have some thoughts on editing sections beyond "Criticisms," and I don't want to make lots of tiny edits, because even with the revision control system here I worry about being a nuisance with a long series of tiny changes as opposed to a few editorial passes. In any case, this is the first article I'm intent on modifying in substance, I intend to take things very slowly, and I have some reading to do before I make any real changes at all. I just wanted to chime in to forewarn of my intentions and to solicit any advice from more experienced users as make my first effort to actually do something with content here. Demonweed 06:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. As is often the case with me, I probably used passive voice a bit more than people like here. However, I thought the end result was an articulate presentation of social justice critiques without resorting to the outright assertion of falsehoods. In most cases I went for phrases like "is thought to" or "could" so as to produce text that was strictly neutral. In one case I did use the word "imagined" because the myth of welfare state idleness is soundly refuted by the actual unemployment rates in every single open society where social justice has actually served as the basis for major economic change. Since I did stay neutral with the point about dependence, I thought it was fair to address this related and popular objection to social justice policies with a hint of a wisp of outright skepticism. Given a significant number of actual welfare states and zero historical instances of enduring welfare-related unemployment gluts, it seemed that doing less would be misleading. My intent was to express objections to social justice as clearly as possible without lying (or preserving some of the remarks that were unclear, bordering on meaningless.) Hopefully, that is what I have done, though certainly I will understand if they evolve over time or even if someone can make a credible case for reversion. Demonweed 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "Social Justice" was either coined or popularized by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical of 1891, Rerum Novarum, (On the Condition of Labor). It rejected both Socialism and Capitalism, while affirming both the rights of unions and private ownership of property. It encouraged cooperation among all parts of society and rejected class conflict and unbridled economic competition. --Marcusscotus1 15:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth or American English style

The article was created April 13, '02 in American style. A major contribution was made December 15, '04 in American style. No Commonwealth style English had been used to this point. A smattering of minor edits were made after that in both styles. On May 29 David91 unilaterally converted the article to Commonwealth English and has since vigorously reverted or changed any variation. This was and is improper. Wikipedia style is that both conventions are correct, but that an article follows first usage. Therefore the article needs to be maintained to American English style. Note that in researching this, if it had been the other side, I would have supported David91.Pollinator 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. I therefore leave it to you to convert all the spellings, usages and constructions to US English. David91 06:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Attn: Pollinator what you say, may be the case, but NO ONE here, that has made major contributions to this page seems to have a problem with Commonwealth English.

Those that you have mentioned have contributed GREATLY to the popularity of this page, look at the links to it. Please just make sure that you are consistent since this seems to be your very own personal sticking point, I can assure you that if I dig into the anals of "wiki policy" I can justify a few more major changes to the generally accepted character of this page. I have made a NUMEROUS amount of contributions to this page, BTW, of which, David91 has made regular Commonwealth edits upon. I'm not screwed up about it. Are you just getting around to reviewing this page? We don't care one way or the other really, just don't screw up a good thing with half-ass edits. "Do the thing right", if you got the time.

- An American that ain't messed up with the Queen's English

[edit] Added Progressivism template

I added the progressivism template, as social justice is interlinked with the historic progressive cause and party's. --Northmeister 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's rather too simplistic an analysis. Varying concepts of "social justice" have been used by nearly everyone in the political spectrum, from Communists to Liberals to Progressives to Conservatives to Nazis. --Delirium 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted POV edit from ANON

Although I actually agree with a bit of the POV of the Anon user, it was not an encyclopedic entry and it did not have an edit summary. If we are to include such an edit, we likely should discuss it here first. Kukini 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for Reverting Blanking

I reverted the blanking of the Progressivism template, as its deletion appears to be based on a political POV and not backed by any verifiable documentation. From what I can see the progressive movement can stake claim to active use of the term as thusfar defined in this article. Kukini 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article lacks much about the general use of social justice

This article has a lot of theory in it, but not much about how social justice is understood by normal everyday people who seek to promote social justice in normal everyday situations and hope that if enough people do this that the world may eventually become more a of a socially just place. I would like to add a section at the beginning before we get into the technical stuff that sets out simply and plainly what social justice as an ideal held by many people the world over is. Then people can read on to see the difficult stuff. The following is taken from a speech by Carmen Lawrence, but it will form the basis of what I will say. I will of course rephrase it and source it when I put it on the main page.

H.G. Wells and his socialist friends enunciated a series of principles (which formed the basis of the later United Nations Declaration on Human Rights), the first of which deserves to be repeated since it captures the essence of social justice: Every man is a joint inheritor of all the natural resources and of the powers, inventions and possibilities accumulated by our forerunners. He is entitled, within the measure of these resources and without distinction of race, colour or professed beliefs or opinions, to the nourishment, covering and medical care needed to realise his full possibilities of physical and mental development from birth to death. Notwithstanding the various and unequal qualities of individuals, all men shall be deemed absolutely equal in the eyes of the law, equally important in social life and equally entitled to the respect of their fellow-men.

This view is exemplified in the United Nations assertion that: Human rights are based on respect for the dignity and worth of all human beings and seek to ensure freedom from fear and want. The more traditional view of human rights limits them to civil and political rights but increasingly, this view has been challenged as too limited in scope. The UN, for example, has added crucial social, economic and cultural rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to education; the right to work and to equal pay for equal work; and the right of minorities to enjoy their own culture, religion and language. These are all objectives of social justice policies. In this formulation, poverty itself is a violation of human rights. Poverty and inequality can also be seen to undermine human rights by fuelling social unrest and violence and increasing the precariousness of social, economic and political rights. JenLouise 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Intro not so wonderful

Also the first sentence is pretty clumsy. Social justice refers to conceptions of justice applied to an entire society. The social part of Social Justice refers to The Social not to Society. That is conceptions of justice applied to those things that lie in the social realm (as opposed to the economic realm for instance). Social justice does not mean redistributing wealth so that all people have the same. It means creating equal access to resources. That means at the most basic level, that, for instance, all people on this earth have equal access to water. This doesn't mean that all people on earth can get clean water with lots of additives like Fluorine just by turning on a tap. It simply means that everyone could drink clean water if they wanted to. So if I can come up with a better very general sentence about what Social Justice is, I will change it if nobody has any problems. JenLouise 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


A broad definition of social justice is social justice reflects the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society. This is taken from a Just Comment publication (Volume 3 Number 1, 2000) and I am going to reword it to form part of the introduction.JenLouise 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


And why was the following deleted from the intro? The right-wing also has its own conceptions of social justice, but generally believes that present day society is already just. If this is meant to be a balanced article, why remove references to use of social justice by Right-wings but leave the lefties there? I think it should go back in. JenLouise 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever deleted this sentence a second time. Can we please discuss it here? I think its important to not make this article one sided saying that it only about left-wing ideas. Its not. Balancing the article requires at least specifying that right-wing people also use this concept, but they just don't see society as unjust. JenLouise 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd reverted to the earlier version before I checked here (checked the talk page, but didn't notice the addition up here). I also reverted the addition of the phrase 'an ideology of' before the word 'equality', which strikes me as either pointless or tendentious (and also messes up the grammar, given that the sentence is 'conceptS of ... and equality'). My opinion: JL's right that something needs to be said about rightwing notions of social justice; but the point that not all rightwingers think that society is currently just is fair enough. Thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence because it is incorrect that right wingers also believe that society is not just. Examples are; taxes are too high, income redistribution is theft, affirmative action is racisim, etc. But I also thought that the comment was not necessary in relation to the topic so chose not to edit and instead remove. The concept of balance in an article that is discussing the ideology of one side of an existing arguement is redundant. In this case social justice is primarily a leftist ideal and based on an ideology of equality. So the basis for removal is that the sentence was both incorrect and unnecessary. If you feel that it is necessary to mention the right you should mention how they attempt to define social justice differently and how they set about trying to achieve that. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

Yes, as I said, I agree with you that many rightwingers think that e.g. redistribution is theft. As I note lower down this page, I think the problem with this article is that 'social justice' covers too many different notions: an egalitarian ideal; a catholic social doctrine; the philosophical question of distributive justice. On the third understanding, there is certainly a right wing idea of social justice (Nozick's utopia, in which contracts are kept and property held by those who are entitled to it, rather than according to any overall pattern, for instance). Perhaps the leftwing/rightwing distrinction isn't really what's relevant here, though: the term 'social justice' is mostly used by people who think current society unjust, and that's the significant point that's being made in the introduction - it's a rallying cry for change. Incidentally, please sign your posts (with four tildes, "~"). Cheers, Sam Clark 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato was talking about justice

Not social justice. There is a difference. The term social justice was not used until 1848. Social justice is a political term that describes the desire for equitable pay. Social justice and justice are not the same thing.

http://www.aworldconnected.com/subcategory.php/80.html#socialjustice http://www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm


Social justice is not (just) "a political term that describes the desire for equitable pay". I won't go deeply into this because it is referred to in the article, but equitable pay is about money and money is related to economics. Social justice is about things in the social realm not things in the economic realm.

However, while you may be right that the early philosophers were talking about justice in general and not specifically social justice, i think that it would be better to move the paragraph you deleted to a section about the historical basis of the term because it is impossible to understand social justice without understanding justice.JenLouise 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of factual errors

I've cut a couple of things: 1. a sentence or two in the introduction which asserted that Social Justice is essentially concerned with human rights. This is just factually false: consider Peter Singer, for instance: pro social justice, but anti-HR. 2. the very odd claim that Locke was a utilitarian. --Sam Clark 11:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi when I put the stuff in about human rights I didn't mean in anyway to imply that Social Justice is essentially concerned with human rights. What I was trying to say is that in general terms, people who believe in Social Justice, and who fight for social justice, believe in a social justice that is based on human rights. There is obviously some divergence between what "laymen" beleive social justice is and what it is in academic literature and politics. I think it is important to have both views of social justice represented in this article. So let me try and write a paragraph for the end of the intro that says this and we can discuss it if you still don't agree. JenLouise 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - You're probably right that much non-academic (as well as plenty of academic) talk about social justice is closely related to human rights, and I like the revised intro. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Ok, let's discuss the topics that should be covered by the criticism section. I, for one, believe that any superficial criticism of vague left-wing notions of social justice (such as the ones that currently dominate the criticism section) are off-topic at best and POV at worst. There are a million possible interpretations of social justice. Why select a specific one for criticism? By criticizing left-wing social justice, we are promoting two POVs: (1) the POV of the critics, and (2) the POV of the left, in the sense that we are endorsing the left-wing view of social justice as the correct one.

Besides, if you look at the criticisms, you'll see that most of them are based on social justice themselves (for example, the view that taxation is unjust).

So, the old criticism section is POV, completely misses the point, and, let's not forget, it is also unreferenced. I see three very good reasons to get rid of it... -- Nikodemos 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the current criticisms section. As for what should replace it, the problem seems to be a more general one with the article, that 'Social justice' means many different things to different people, and that these different meanings aren't clearly distinguished here. I'm a political philosopher, and I therefore think of SJ as a synonym for distributive justice (i.e. the question of what would be a fair distribution of goods like wealth, respect etc.), but SJ also refers to a form of Catholic political activism, to a left-wing ideal, etc. To be honest, I think a lot of the articles in the justice category need revising (see my proposed revision of justice, for instance); perhaps the revision of this article needs to be part of that wider effort... Cheers, --Sam Clark 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the criticism section firmly establishes that it is one side of the debate. I also think it is important to have in the article. Perhaps it just needs to be balanced by criticism of other conceptions of social justice. Also the first section on objective standard needs to be expanded or removed. It offer nothing to the article in its present one sentence format. JenLouise 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased with the criticism section as it addresses many of the applications of social justice being promoted today. If the left has hijacked the notion, that should be included in the criticism section as well.208.255.179.254
An article on social justice in general should not include criticisms of particular versions of social justice, any more than the article on law should include criticisms of, say, Iranian law. Besides, the section was little more than a collection of personal opinions. -- Nikodemos 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly the same thing. Law exists as a concept separate from the way it is instituted in a particular country. The whole point is that social justice does not exist as a concept separate from the way that different people intepret it. Now matter how Law is operationalised, the abstract definition of law applies to all of its incarnations. This is clearly not the same for social justice. You cannot objectively say that the philosophical conception of social justice is more legitimate than the Catholic conception of social justice, etc. Therefore each conception of social justice is just as legitimate as every other, and as the article deals with them all (as it should) then the criticism section should as well. JenLouise 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But social justice does exist as a separate concept. You need go no further than Rawls' A Theory of Justice to see that you can discuss the principles underlying social justice without describing its content.
Besides, the criticism section, as it existed before, attacked one conception of social justice from the perspective of another conception of social justice (it attacked the left from the right). What's the logic in that? -- Nikodemos 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets limit the criticism of social justice to only shallow mindless support of it when in reality social justice is just a scam invented by the left to make pathetic people feel like victims so they will vote for the democrats. When people really are treated unfairly it is called oppression, not "lack of social justice". This only happens when people don't have freedom. There is only one cure. REVOLUTION and WAR. America is a fee country and thus people are not oppressed and thus most people aren't willing to fight in a civil war in this country.

The communist propaganda artists in the universities try to brainwash stupid people with concepts of "social justice" in the hopes of votes for the democrats. In the 60's they tried to start a civil war in this country. If the leftist feel so strongly about "social justice" why are they not fighting in the streets for it? Because they hope their brainwashed dupes will do their fighting for them. 69.208.162.25

No comment... -- Nikodemos 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Back to the constructive discussion, I don't think attacking one perspective from another perspective is logical, but I do think that listing some of the criticisms of the different perspectives is logical. If not, I think that the article itself should at least state why it does not have criticms... I can't actually think of a sentence at the moment, but something that explains that the content is not missing, but has purposely been left out - particularly now that there is a stub tag there. Otherwise it looks like we're inviting people to fill in the criticism section with criticisms directed at their particular conception of social justice (i.e. what's just been deleted) - at least it looks that way to me. JenLouise 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I will try to write a few sentences explaining the difference between criticism of a particular school of social justice and criticism of social justice in general. -- Nikodemos 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate entry to add to the outside reference list:

[edit] More criticism

The article fails to distinguish what might be called the "true" aims of social justice from the stated aims as listed by Rawls. Rawls lists nothing that the Framers of the Constitution didn't also espouse, and if proponents of social justice stuck to those aims, they would have no movement and no name. But they do have a movement, and it hints at support for more aggressive government redistribution of wealth or other state means of achieving "equality" (maybe that's not accurate, but there's something there). Otherwise why speak of "social justice" at all, instead of just asking (as we all ask) that our existing laws and societal goals of fairness be upheld in all cases where they are not? The movement is adding something, and the article hasn't hit the nail on the head yet. --Eisenmenner 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think that this article needs a serious rewrite. At least, there's certainly no reason why so much focus would be made on John Rawls opinions while so many other great philosophers expressed various opinions on the concept of "social justice". I tried to improve the intro a few weeks ago and I think it is merely acceptable now. Also, what's the point of the green politics series in this article? It seems to me that this belongs first to the socialism series. --Childhood's End 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESocial_justice_37ab.html"