Discussion: Theory of Social Justice

This post is an address and call for the need of Social Justice. There actually may be no need for Social Justice. That is because Social Justice, in itself, as I define it could be a need felt by people of society. It is a need only insofar as it is how people are affected. If Social Justice exists for a person, then it arises from certain conditions. Let me explain my interpretation of Social Justice. Societies can create laws and customs that they accept, but Social Justice is something which may be enacted external to the institution or law. General notions of Justice manifest themselves socially too, but Social Justice is purely manifested socially, not as much required to be from specific legal, philosophical or religious hierarchies. The state or society will already be attempting to enforce or create laws to the best of their ability. Social Justice originates from within the intersectionality of the disenfranchised and the observers of the disenfranchised.

I think that’s the most important definition, I recall saying something similar in my ‘Sargon of Akkad: Empathy, Norms and Customs’ video, as Sargon is unable/unwilling to grasp the relevance of feminism because ‘women have the same legal rights as men under the law’, where exactly this is in my guess, is in the western developed world, which means he is excluding the problems in Muslim countries. Norms are unwritten laws and so the only way to combat them if they are perceived as wrongful, is through resistance outside of government agency, social awareness, or direct confrontation etc.

The feeling isn’t pity or resentment. Closely related to Social Justice is the notion of Reparative Justice, which is similar to what I will suggest that Social Justice is. However, Social Justice does not necessitate a change in the distribution of wealth or correcting the laws. Material change may be a result of Social Justice, but that is not the end of Social Justice. What I define as Social Justice’s end is to nurture those who are not nurtured by society.

Indeed, just buying a loaf of bread for a homeless person is a good start, or lending an ear where there is non.

This is a more abstract definition than a materialist or concrete description. I think that is the difference between Social Justice and Reparative Justice.  This process occurs regardless of whether society is actually corrected in legal terms. It may arise from a material need, but the process in itself is abstract and perhaps sociological.  Social and also purely epistemological ideas are important to consider, in my opinion. This idea separates me from certain “liberals” (general concept). 

I’m not familiar with Reparative Justice, is that something to do with shaming? I only briefly looked it up on Google. The only other defintion that came to mind is reparations in the form of payments to victims?

How much social nurturing are people entitled to, if any? Even if I could not justify the social nurturing part of Social Justice, Social Justice still earns its name from emerging in a social way. Social nurturing can be viewed as necessary in capitalist meritocracies. There are concrete ways it may be necessary, but people will seek error with this because there are always many exceptions such as people succeeding without education.

Yes, the concept of ‘inequality is virtuous’ can be a serious blockade when addressing nurture. People forget that one requires the other to give them a chance.

More personally, I would say it is the individual need or feeling to nurture those people.

I think we can remove the term need and feelings by addressing it as a value equation based on how efficient or wasteful an individual is in their expenditure of energy in society. I brought this up in a recent Facebook Live video.

In many theologies, it is not a feeling. Religious persons may find it as a need.

I have always found Muslim people to be very compassionate actually.

Also, I think that Reparative Justice is fantastic but may completely fall apart when applied to social spheres, or bias in general. This is because of the moral values and subjectivity behind these topics, and the discussion of what reparation entails. Independently and not institutionally enacted Reparative Justice also may be Social Justice where it nurtures (not gratifies).

If I amfollowing this correctly, I think you are saying that this kind of justice is restitutive, this would mainly be financial I think, the main examples that come to mind are payments of compensation from slave owner families to relatives of slaves from the past?

Treating people the way that you yourself desire to be treated does not seem apply when you have a low self-esteem or do not have the concept that you are entitled to better treatment.

I think this is where everything becomes blurry where Social Justice is concerned. We don’t want to perpetuate the role of victimhood, or being disadvantaged and so the keyword is ‘privilege’. Of course, those who don’t agree with Social Justice see the whole campaign as losing out on their ‘side’ and tribal in-out groups begin to form as we have seen time and time again. The only thing I could boil it down to was low self-esteem and this definitely gets in the way of Justice.

Nurturing yourself and others on the other hand can improve the situation when both are lacking. Nurturing a human being is much more straightforward of a process from my experience, rather than enforcing reparations. It may come from my desire to live freely, or desire for others to do so. Finally, on presupposing a positive meaning of the word “nurture”, it comes from the idea of life affirmation. I think that some type of present Love may be required in the first place to even believe in this, of course.

Agreed.