The term “social justice” has existed since the 1840s and has continued to transform over the years. “Global justice” is simply another in a long line of interchangeable prefixes such as “national justice”, “economic justice” etc that precede the word justice. A plethora of policies are advocated under the name of “global justice”. This paper will consider the more popular proposal of income redistribution and consider its intellectual foundation and how it relates to justice, as well as its real world implications.
The most apparent and theoretically, the most easily overcome obstacle inherent in this idea is the very definition of the term “social justice”. As the years go by the term grows to encompass an ever increasing number of issues. It can mean anything from income redistribution to AIDS prevention. For some contemporary examples, the student activist group Global Justice1 has no definition of the term it so prominently uses as its name yet states that its purpose deals with “AIDS, trade and child survival”. Nowhere does the organization attempt to explain why their particular stand on those particular issues has anything to do with “global justice”. USC professor Robin D.G. Kelley is the executive editor of the “Social Justice Wiki”2. The stated objective of the online encyclopedia is to document various activist groups and movements3. Any attempt to discern any further insight of the term 'social justice' from the very encyclopedia dedicated to its name will result in failure as there is no indication as to why those specific groups fall under the banner of social justice and other groups do not, except for purely subjective and arbitrary guidelines4.
The pervasiveness and the emptiness of the term speak volumes ab...
... middle of paper ...
...e on “society”, but rather we have a clear case of who is being unjust to whom. The incredible irony of this situation would be that this legitimate and justifiable form of 'global justice' (in which case the guilty parties were unjust in their individual conduct and are clearly identified) would usually be invoked in order to counter policies enacted precisely under the justification of “social justice”. Perhaps “social justice” activists can redeem themselves of this past error, but only if they begin advocating against the injustice of trade barriers and immigration restrictions; for that is the only valid application of “justice on a global scale”. Any other justification for income redistribution leads to innocent individuals who justly acquired their material wealth, unjustly forced to pay compensation for the suffering of others they had no part in promoting.
My definition of social justice in the field of education is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child and the British-Colombia School Act that state that every child has a right to a proper education (UNICEF, n.d.; School Act, RSBC 1996, c. 412). A proper education to me is based on opportunity. I believe that in order to have a proper education, children should all be entitled to equal opportunity in their learning process. Children should have equal opportunity to obtain the supports that will assist them in achieving their potential.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
There is a common root to most (or perhaps all) grave forms of social injustice: the rejection of human equality and the influence of this rejection on human relationships and institutions.
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
Social justice is a core value in the social work field. We define social justice as, “all citizens would possess equal fundamental rights, protection, opportunities, obligations and social benefits (Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2015, p. 29). Unfortunately, we understand there are many members in today’s society that are not receiving social justice. Some may not want help and believe that s/he is able to do it on their own and then there are the individuals that we may not know about that could really use our help. Our jobs as social workers is to help those who need help no matter if they are rich, poor, disabled, white, Hispanic, it does not matter because everyone should be treated equally. As NASW states, “The original mission of social work had much to do with championing the rights of society’s most vulnerable members, from children to homeless people to the physically disabled” (NASW: National Association of Social Workers, 2015, para. 1).
Critical social justice, unlike the more mainstream social justice, looks at the inequalities present in society more critically and actively tries to change them. Though the word “critical” has many negative connotations critical social justice purpose is not to judge but to help people think about the different perspectives of an issue. Nothing happens in a vacuum and when looking at an issue critical social justice understands that a person has to comprehend the history and cultural perspectives surrounding the issue. The more critical social justice realizes that inequality is not just a hateful word here or there, but is actually is something ingrained into the structures that make up
...nly distributed, and no traces of economic justice even exist. People living in poverty need some kind of hope, some sign that their government has not forgotten them. The truth is, there are plenty of people who do care, and there are many efforts to help. The discrepancies are simply too big to go unnoticed, and a change is inevitable. As for right now, the trend continues. The rich get super-richer, the poor get poorer
Defined by the NASW (2016), social justice is the idea that everyone is entitled to equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. This is one of the main goals social workers aim to achieve. There are many injustices occurring in the world today, such as wage inequalities, institutional racism, and the amount of people living in poverty. Fighting for social justice is fighting for equality in all of these
The unequal distribution of wealth is seen as a negative and ongoing problem and debate within American politics and society. There is a great deal of evidence to back up why wealth distribution is damaging the American ideals of life. It also carries inevitable and undetermined consequences for our nation. How resources are distributed within a country depends on where the resources were found. For example, numerous people will move to an area that is rich with resources in order in ensure job security. Just because a country is fruitful in a resource does not mean that that particular country is wealthy. In fact, the laborers are paid very minimal...
Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In western as well as in Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. Today social justice lies in between the balance of chaos and insanity. In what possible way could law enforcement be viewed as criminals while professional athletes who show no respect to the country that pays them millions of dollars be viewed as political figures and heroes?
Social Justice is about making society function better – providing the support and tools to help turn lives around. This is a challenging new approach to dealing with poverty in all its forms. It is not about income poverty alone.(SJS) Throughout this essay I will explore why Poverty is a primary issue when striving for Social Justice and how, we as professionals, can attempt to overcome this by working together to achieve a fairer more just society. Social Work, Primary Education and Community Learning and Development are working together collaboratively to achieve Social Justice. I will discuss the changes that have taken place in our professions and the guidelines and regulations that we must adhere to. In addition to this I will examine the positive and negative outcomes of my group experience working together with CLD, Social Work and Education Students. I will also address the historical perspective in addition to the philosophical perspectives.
Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
What does social justice mean to a mother on welfare struggling to feed her family, or to a young college graduate looking for a job? Of course it can be said that all people are subject to the same experiences included in the American dream no matter race, religion, gender, economic status; yet centuries seem to fly by like water in a downhill stream, and the world’s smudged reality of social justice is still intact. Social justice is defined as fair treatment in the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privileges: this includes education, economic opportunities, health care, property, and fair subjugation to laws. Although some progress has been made, it is still very important for society to fully grasp