What is Social Justice?

I thought I would pose a wide open question, to a rather complex topic. What is social justice?

Some things to think about are: what determines if an action, plan, or restriction is socially just (e.g. entitlement, market, theory, dialogue, dictator, ethical theory, common good)? How would social justice be enforced (e.g. taxation, voting, laws, courts, police)? How do you protect lower class, or minority populations that lack political, economic, or social capital? What types of government would be best suited for fostering a society that valued social justice?

An action, plan or restriction is socially just if it levels the playing field or, if you hate metaphorical cliches, it affords equal opportunities. Thus it should simply be one principle and nothing more, like a constitution.

You protect those without political, economic or social capital by giving them the means to acquire it (and not just giving it to them straight - this would be decidedly unjust) at the expense, if necessary, of those who have too much of it.

What people value is different

Thanks for the nice starting point. I do have an issue with one thing off of the top of my head is the idea of equal opportunity. First off, does every one actually want the same opportunities? For example, the current powers that be want everyone to be good little consumers, go to college, and make lots of money to help pay the tax burden. But does everyone want to have the equal opportunity to be a cog in the economic machine and be a consumer? Equal opportunity is often used as a mask to say well they had the opportunity, but did not exercise it. What people value is different. I am sure many people would rather have the chance to just have the opportunity to have a good job without going to college. But when those jobs are not their, do they have an equal opportunity to their own well being and happiness--no probably not.

Democracy--especially the two-party system in the U.S.--is very susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. All it takes is a fraction over 50% to push around the rest of the population at will.

So ultimately I would ask, according to whose definition of social justice?

I'd say Bones is on track, but I would reword it. The opportunities that Bones speaks of is natural and preexist society. If it weren't for these opportunities being present prior to society, then society would never exist, as society only comes into being as a result of people looking to exploit these opportunities for their own fulfillment.

So I would say that an action, plan or restriction is socially just if it creates limitations prohibiting other agents from exploiting the opportunities provided by social interaction.

See, to me this is backwards thinking. Like I said, the opportunities are natural and not provided by society, rather society comes about as a result of people looking to fulfill the natural opportunities. As a result there is no way in which society can provide opportunities, rather it can only place limitations on their fulfillment.

Exactly. Evaluating and quantifying opportunity and determining who has too much or too little is an impossible task.

To support your point about social programs, there is a great deal of data to support the notion that welfare and other social support do nothing but create a need for welfare and other social support within entire communities. Welfare often does not raise to poverty level, it simply makes it harder to rise above the poverty level. Whats more, all of these welfare programs cannot help but be measures of social control as well, be it geographical segregation along lines of economic class, or be it institutionalizing education and dietary standards.

Now a question arises. What is the nature of humans? Are they primarily social animals or are they deliberative, self-conscious, animals. The former would suggest that social justice is based upon natural rights, because it is in our nature to interact and depend on others; and the later suggests that social justice is bound up in proper enforcement of socially contracted rights.

Cheers for the response, Mr FtP. I don't really agree, though, with your view that these opportunities (at least the ones of which I spoke) are pre-social. (I assume you are not extending the definition of 'society' here to pre-civilisation, naturally arising social groups, to which our species has always belonged.) I think society and such opportunities develop hand-in-hand. As soon as there is an authoritative position on justice, which requires such a society, the notion of fairness and so equal opportunities may evolve.

If the opportunities are exploited unequally (i.e. disproportionately), they are neither socially just nor equal opportunities.

Ahh! But natural opportunities are not equal opportunities: they are not within the scope of social justice. Social justice can only be concerned with society-derived opportunities.

Not at all. Progressive taxation, for instance, has worked fairly easily in the UK, bar tax avoidance which could be dealt with. Of course, such justice would come at an economic price.

Now a question arises. What is the nature of humans? Are they primarily social animals or are they deliberative, self-conscious, animals. The former would suggest that social justice is based upon natural rights, because it is in our nature to interact and depend on others; and the later suggests that social justice is bound up in proper enforcement of socially contracted rights.

As per my reply to Mr. FtP, social justice requires an authority of justice within society.

The Principle of Social Justice: It is the duty of the state to ensure that the opportunities afford its citizens are independent of current or historical coincidental factors and, moreover, to lay provision for its citizens to empower themselves to seize such opportunities where dependent factors apply by means that minimise cost impact for every other citizen.

What is social justice?

But I do not mean that all of these opportunities were available and then people created society in order to exploit them. These opportunities come about this way: the concept of some product, service, or interaction is formulated, from there society is formed in order to provide or consume this. Society does not provide healthcare, for example. Rather all social structures that have arisen around healthcare came about through natural individual desires to provide and have healthcare.

You are not speaking of means but of ends. Opportunities are the means, exploitation and use are the ends, and equality in one does not translate to equality in the other.

Consider a scenario where the two of us are stranded on a desert island together. Me, being myopic and unmotivated, quickly throw together a lean-to shelter of palm leaves and set to sleeping my island life away. You, being the industrious of the pair, begin building a sturdy elevated shelter in the cover of trees. Within a couple weeks you have a resilient and safe shelter and I am rebuilding mine every night.

Obviously you have a better position and exploited the resources at hand unequally, yet it would be silly to say that we were not provided with equal opportunity.

There are natural opportunities that are not within the scope of society in general, and even when it is concerned social justice does not directly deal with natural opportunities. In fact, according to my view on it, social justice is more effective the less it interferes in the natural (this is a trend in several topics for me). Like I said, social justice is most concerned in limiting limitations.

People are unequal, and this is not to say that people are better or worse, they are just not the same. People will pursue satisfaction in their own unique way, and will use opportunity in their own unique way. The satisfaction and the path we choose to find fulfillment IS what makes everyone of us a person. It may not be real, we may still be just the mechanics of a deterministic universe, but we understand ourselves as a person by the agency we possess in our actions and thoughts.

To me, the only crime one can commit against another person, and the only crime social justice should be concerned with, is the crime of limiting the process by which one fulfills him or herself as a person.

I will actually defend progressive taxation against flat taxation, although I am vehemently opposed to all taxation.

With that said, it is easy to implement programs designed at trying to "level the playing field", but that says nothing about whether they are fair or not.

But even social provision of education leads to standardized education and socially mandated curriculum.

I, on the other hand, think that authority is antithetical to justice of any sort. Morality and mandate cannot coexist.

Ok, first I see big problems with defining what is coincidental.

Secondly, I don't have any issue with the clause about empowerment, as long as it is understood that no opportunity be restricted in order to provide it.

I personally agree with tenets of equality, but I really don't understand what many people mean by equality.

What do you mean by equality?

Lemme see if I can take a stab at this:[INDENT]Social justice is the perception that exists when members of any particular 'society' have their notions of 'justice' regularly administered. Whether I, you, or anyone else thinks such is "just" matters not at all; only to those members of whatever society we're addressing.
[/INDENT]How's that wash?

Like I said, I think there is nothing socially just about how society naturally arranges itself, which is much like how society has arranged itself today: the pyramid structure. That structure can't be flattened (made just or equal) without state intervention since people aren't born with equal opportunity: it must be afforded them externally.

I am glad you wrote this, because this is something we covered in my class that inspired this thread. Obviously there are many different theories, and you hit on one in particular. You describe communitarian ethics, which are wholly subjective to the communities they matter to. According to this school of thought, only the "community"--whatever that may be--has the capability of deciding what is just. In theory, you could have a world communitarian ethic, although its integrity would inevitably be compromised, thus, communities are usually organize people in a local region.

I think the hierarchical structure of modern societies can and must me flattened, and accomplishing it is rather easy. Any time a centralized power tries to control disparate people, it causes some form of injustice or another, by certain people being favored for some reason or another. By decentralizing power, and dispersing it more to local communities, the divide of power is distributed more justly by more people having political power, but they also do not have the ability to create a large concentration of power.

By dispersing power, more people are born with equal opportunity, and their are more people locally that have the power to help their local community members. Where every their is a hierarchy of power there will necessarily be injustice--well unless people ruled by benevolence. I don't know if you could fully eliminate the hierarchical model, but the negative effects could be reduced to a minimum.

Like I said, I think there is nothing socially just about how society naturally arranges itself, which is much like how society has arranged itself today: the pyramid structure. That structure can't be flattened (made just or equal) without state intervention since people aren't born with equal opportunity: it must be afforded them externally. The son of a CEO has much more opportunities and is much more likely to succeed in any of them than the son of a smalltime drug dealer. The former will inherit, get the best education and will have doors opened for him; the latter will be lucky to get a state education at a pisspoor school before hitting the welfare and procreating indefinitely for more welfare. And these extremes will continue so long as no provision is made to even the playing field and ensure that all opportunities open to the CEO's son are, in principle, open to the drug-dealer's, irrespective of who exploits what.

This doesn't seem to be an argument against excluding people from opportunities. I agree, everyone will exploit different opportunities, but this is not relevant to the question of social justice which requires that all people have, in principle, the same choice.

That's fine, so long as you provide entirely for yourself.

How so???

What is socially unjust about this? It might mean you won't receive the best possible education, but if all education was standardised everyone would have the same opportunities. As it is, the children of the richest folk get the best education. The question of the quality of state education is another thing entirely.

I'd say...
Social justice is the aim to give all members of society the same advantages despite their origins and circumstances.
An action, plan or restriction is socially just if it levels the playing field or, if you hate metaphorical cliches, it affords equal opportunities. Thus it should simply be one principle and nothing more, like a constitution.
You protect those without political, economic or social capital by giving them the means to acquire it (and not just giving it to them straight - this would be decidedly unjust) at the expense, if necessary, of those who have too much of it. There are many programmes designed to do the former, but they receive very little government backing. Adult education is, for me, a strong issue. Not all children receive good schooling or the necessary parental support or environment to grow in to prosper in education.
I think Democracy should be fine, but we should make the tenets of social justice a constitution, i.e. above the voting public and their elected representatives.