The problem with “social justice”, part 2

Is there really a problem with “social justice?”

In part 1 of this series, I suggested that:

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

Obviously, the important question to pursue is “What is justice?” By definition, “justice” is:

a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b(1)
: the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness
c: the quality of conforming to law
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice)

What could be more right than justice? Being impartial? Being fair?

Justice, when approached purely, is a divine gift and a blessing. The pure approach, however, requires its champion to take personal advancement or protection out of the equation. Pure justice is fueled with the good of others as its only motivation.

Unfortunately, the way that we individually determine what justice looks like is through our own particular lens.

What would be fair when applied to me?  What are my rights? Once I have settled those egocentric “truths,” I must decide whether I am then willing to “share” my rights with all others.

The concept of justice as understood in modern culture is essentially self-centered.

Troublesome idea, isn’t it? And unattractive for those of us who have carried justice as the banner for our desire to help others. However, even this egocentric approach can be a blessing if we ground it in an essential truth we’ll look at next time.

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Your email address will not be published.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 *