The problem with “social justice”, part 1

Yes, there is a problem with “social justice.”

If your first reaction to my statement is one of strong agreement or equally strong disagreement, I really hope that you’ll read this series of short posts. You may find yourself agreeing for a totally new reason.

  • defines “social justice” as “the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.”
  • looks a little deeper — “The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.”
  • Glenn Beck says social justice is “(f)orced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.”

While the first definition is fairly neutral and simply describes the most visible goal of social justice initiatives, the other two definitions present the true problem.

The problem with social justice is that it is based on justice.

That’s a tough ending statement. You may have already assigned a meaning to the words and you may have even formed an opposing view. I’m old enough and mature enough to know that I may, indeed, be wrong. Before you make a final judgment, I hope you’ll return to the remaining posts in this series while you think seriously about this important topic. And, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “The problem with “social justice”, part 1