Social Justice Definition? (Representatives, suspect, parties, economic)

[RobinD69]

How do you define Social Justice?

[Little-Acorn]

"Social Justice" is what liberals resort to when real justice (i.e. equal application of law to everyone) doesn't suit their agenda.

[KUchief25]

Is that when judges tweet the verdict?

[Little-Acorn]

When they unfriend the suspect, that's a bad sign.

[HappyTexan]

When a group is given preferential treatment for some wrongdoing done against them in the past because years later they are still victims.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

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.

[RobinD69]

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.

[jackmccullough]

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.

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

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.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

How do you define Social Justice?

It's defined by whatever liberals what it to mean.