U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2012, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 5,452,125 times
Reputation: 629

Advertisements

How do you define Social Justice?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,247,960 times
Reputation: 4167
"Social Justice" is what liberals resort to when real justice (i.e. equal application of law to everyone) doesn't suit their agenda.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:11 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 20,901,160 times
Reputation: 5447
Is that when judges tweet the verdict?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:20 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,247,960 times
Reputation: 4167
When they unfriend the suspect, that's a bad sign.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,053 posts, read 80,074,375 times
Reputation: 27684
When a group is given preferential treatment for some wrongdoing done against them in the past because years later they are still victims.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:29 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,247,960 times
Reputation: 4167
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
When a group is given preferential treatment for some perceived wrongdoing imagined to be done against them in the past because years later they are still mistaken for victims.
Fixed it for you, HappyTexan.

Last edited by Little-Acorn; 08-28-2012 at 06:39 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 5,452,125 times
Reputation: 629
Thanks folks but I am looking for a little more definitive accuracy. I have been to at least 10 websites and have yet to find any two to agree. The attempts you have made are actually more clear and to the point.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,443 posts, read 13,297,605 times
Reputation: 17527
So that's your thread? You ask a question without any context or input from yourself?

One well-reasoned and well-respected analysis of social justice comes from John Rawls and his seminal work A Theory of Justice. He sets forth a number of criteria, but one of the best known is his description of what he calls the "veil of ignorance".

As summarized in Wikipedia:

This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what their notion of justice is
"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the prospects of the least well-off.
They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association [Rawls, p 11]
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 5,452,125 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
So that's your thread? You ask a question without any context or input from yourself?

One well-reasoned and well-respected analysis of social justice comes from John Rawls and his seminal work A Theory of Justice. He sets forth a number of criteria, but one of the best known is his description of what he calls the "veil of ignorance".

As summarized in Wikipedia:

This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what their notion of justice is
"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the prospects of the least well-off.
They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association [Rawls, p 11]
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.
That was the point of asking the question, I haven't gotten two people to agree on the definition yet.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2012, 07:21 PM
 
Location: az
7,174 posts, read 4,207,590 times
Reputation: 6054
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
How do you define Social Justice?
It's defined by whatever liberals what it to mean.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top