The Liberal Conception Of Social Justice

Simply put Nozick theorized that you are entitled to your holdings, meaning money, property, goods as long as you acquired them justly (without violating anyone elses rights).

The Granges ultimate goal was to help farmers “gain economic leverage and strengthen the commercial position of the American farmer” (Globalyceum, The Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, 1877-1914). The Labor Unions and the Grange set up social justice for the workers during the Gilded Age. They both built social solidarity and collaborative action, as well as empowered the workers to exercise self-determination, realize their full potential, and fight for what they deserved as workers.

These are the people not being heard by the higher powers. Rawls identifies two principles for the topic of justice. The first being that each individual should have the same rights to the liberties consistent with other people experiencing the same liberties. The second being that inequalities should be arranged so that they would be to everyone’s advantage. With these two principles, Rawls's concept of justice would be to give more attention to those born with fewer resources to achieve success socioeconomically. This type of justice is valuable because it gives the less fortunate a chance to be at the same level as a privileged person. The term justice can mean enabling any person to realize their full potential inside of their society despite certain attributes, disabilities, sexual orientation, gender, races, religions, and any other belief or culture. Everyone should be allowed equal opportunities so that they can have the chance to find their place in their community—whether they decide to be proactive or not. Giving

Social Justice: To me, the term 'Social Justice' means to share the wealth and opportunities. This helps those who are underprivileged and do not get as many opportunities as others in our society. This is what God means by helping your neighbour. By sharing around opportunities more people in our society will have jobs so they can afford to provide for themselves. By sharing wealth around our society, people will be able to afford to care for themselves with food and when they are sick.

Justice Issues In Canadian Society By: Council of Canadian Bishops In Canadian society, there are many great things that everyday people do to make the place they live in much more. Charity is a big contribution to our society; almost everyday, people donate money and clothes they grow out of to help the less fortunate out. General kindness is a wonderful thing to see from one person to another; from holding the door open for an elderly person, to giving money to the homeless, kindness can be seen everywhere.

In his book “Anarchy, state and utopia”, Nozick provides a moral defense for Libertarianism, which is traditionally defined as “the advocacy of individual liberty,

Social justice is the distribution of difference in society and is based on equality and its opportunity.

Oftentimes, the definition of social justice can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. The true definition of social justice is often structured by governmental implications but is the fair and proper administration of laws to each individual conforming to the natural law. Equality is supposed to be equally distributed amongst individuals nationally, but can sometimes be taken advantage of and be taken away from people who deserve it the most. Generally, those who view social justices as a right, also value people above profits.

Distributive justice, which is generally identified as “economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots of socialism, where equality is a fundamental principle.” Typically, individuals who believe that they are not getting their proper or “fair” share of something, they will usually do whatever means necessary in order to achieve what is suppose that is fair or they deserve. They will then pursue other systems of justice. The standard of equality is also located in the notion of “fair play as opposed to the fair share of distributive justice.”

As globalization becomes a pressing issue of study, and as interaction becomes more and more contextualized in a global platform, issues of social justice become a concern for sociologists and for Christians. From the Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory perspectives as well as the Human rights perspective, it seems as if the march of globalization has brought more injustice and social inequality into the world.

In classical theories about social justice it is looked at from the view of the whole community. In the more contemporary theories social justice is explored from an individual perspective. The classical theories mostly take place during the time of the hierarchical societies. Where

The cry for equality of opportunity for the underprivileged and weaker sections of the society is being increasingly heard these days and this demonstrates the importance of notion of distributive justice in modern consciousness. Distributive justice embraces "the whole economic dimension of social justice, the entire question of proper distribution of goods and services within thesociety". It demands equality in the distribution or allotment of advantages or burdens. The advantages or burdens which are to be distributed are of numerous kinds such as wages, taxes, property, punishments, individual or social performances or rights and duties as allocated and apportioned by the legal system. Distributive justice aims to strike a balance in the socio-economic structure of the society to bring equipoise between the conflicting desires, interests and claims of the individual citizens. Justice P.N. Bhagwati succinctly explains distributive justice as under:-

Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following two principles of justice in hopes which are theoretically capable of achieving institutional reform. The first principle of justice is that “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (5). Moreover, this is the translating of rights into real possibilities to guarantee that one really does have freedom. And this is a fair and concrete value which society does, in theory, guarantees. The second principle of justice is that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” (6). Thus, there is no exclusion of any group.

Why is this? Under the original position we would all choose a society that held fundamental liberties for everyone and would hold that inequalities only be allowed if they would benefit the least fortunate (Shaw & Barry, 2016). This sounds too good to be true, as many people have conflicting interests and beliefs that would prevent them from this sort of reasoning, you might say. Rawls, however, also asks that people remove their individual biases, status, gender, etc. or use a veil of ignorance when assessing their idealized fundamental principles.

Social justice is mutually a practice and a goal. The goal of social justice is complete and equal contribution by all people in a society that is equally designed to meet their needs. Social justice allows for all members of society to be physically and psychologically safe and secure. It is a set of values that allow us to understand what is right and wrong in our world regardless of race, culture and economic status. That we take care of those in need of help, so that they can take care of themselves. Social justice allows equal rights and opportunities to everyone in society.