Social justice is a different area of thought than individual justice. It’s not, “how do we value the group at the expense of individuals,” but rather “how do we value individuals regardless of the group?”
If the latter is true, (“how do we value individuals regardless of the group?”) the word “justice” suffices, and the need for the “social” prefix is unnecessary. Much like hate-crime, the addition of hate only interferes or muddles crime due to the subjective or relative nature of the meaning or ability to know what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t.
As an example from US history, consider The Trail of Tears: President Andrew Jackson ordered 16,000 natives be forcibly removed from their land when gold was discovered in Georgia. Treaties were ignored, and 4,000 marched to their deaths:
What Jackson did was use Governmental power to steal what belonged to someone else. When any entity forcibly takes for themselves (or others) what belongs to another, for any reason, this is called theft. This is not capitalism and theft is not required for a free market to function.
Just as Mao killed many in the name of communism; US militias killed in the name of Capitalism. Neither was just. Both had to do with group identities.
I agree neither situation was Just. However, the type of injustices was quite different. In Communism, the collective is required to participate, and any outliers or exception to the “norm” are a danger to the collective. In Mao, Castro, or Marks cases dissenters are removed for the good of the collective, or the good of their power. Governmental theft is mandated and necessary for Communism to function.
In the case of Jackson, the function of capitalism (or free market) was violated for Jackson’s Government to “take” what wasn’t’ freely open for sale. The taking isn’t a necessity for a free-market to function while it is for Communism to function. Again, this is theft, not a free market. Do Capitalist cheat? Yes. Does the current system, banking and otherwise, cheat, absolutely.
Had Jackson offered the Cherokee something for the gold (or their land) and the Cherokee using their ownership of the gold to freely trade or better position themselves then and the only then would Capitalism have been at play. In Communism, the land and gold would have always been considered the property of the State, thus causing a similar result.
Here’s one practical definition from Appalachian State University:
Social justice is defined as “… promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” It exists when “all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources.” In conditions of social justice, people are “not be discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other characteristics of background or group membership” (Toowoomba Catholic Education, 2006).
This definition pretty much validates the video’s claim as it is clearly siding with the notion of justice as defined by groups going os far as to end with the final caveat of group membership.
None of these descriptors matter in the case of Justice. All that matters is what is the rule, did I violate said rule.0
Leave a Reply