The View Of Smedes's Views Of Contemporary Theologians

Culturally speaking, Walter Rauschenbusch may have been years ahead of his time. From the very first chapter of his most famous work, Rauschenbusch’s passion for social justice is quite evident. He certainly had his finger on the pulse of his current generation, noting the compelling movement of the college students of his day to social service (3). It could be argued that the current generation shares this passion and perhaps even his theology. Unfortunately, while as believers we are called to “act justly and love mercy” (Micah 6:8), Rauschenbusch’s system of theology to uphold this love for social justice

To show the difference between justice and charity, he defines the two terms. He defines justice as, “things which we may, if necessary, be forced to do”. He then defines charity as something that, “comes ‘from the heart’”. The main difference between the two would be the reason why one would take action. With justice one is compelled to right a wrong they have committed, for example, causing the starvation of people so they must feed them. Charity on the other hand is not required of someone, it is an optional moral

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

-Individuals should have the sense of fairness in, "what is distributed" or "what is right."

The supremacy of the constitution and the observation that distributive justice does not allow inequalities shows interrelation. The constitution does not allow inequalities based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or even religion. All people are to be treated equally by the constitution. Similarly, distributive justice does not permit inequalities in a given society if it is the one being embraced (Fleischacker, 2009). The fact that both the constitution and the distributive justice do not permit inequalities shows that the two are

Social equality is the concept in which all individuals possess the same fundamental basic liberties, opportunities, moral value/respect, and social benefits. The concept of ‘equality’ has a multiplicity of meanings and definitions, and with the rise of liberalization and democratization around the world ‘social equality’ has become the most predominant. As economic openness creates greater wealth disparities, the parallel rise of democratization has enabled citizens to demand more accountability measures and public welfare services from their governments in order to manage such disparities. Although the movement towards greater social

The texts show the interconnectedness of the faith and justice and how they should be carried out in community. Biblical traditions give a guide to the ideal community where every human person’s

The constituents of a just society varies among the minds of humans. Throughout humanity, people have fought for what they believe is an ideal just world. Their perceptions of justice is dependent upon their upbringing, experiences, and surroundings. One can loosely define a just society in which the basic rights of humans are fulfilled. Nonetheless, as people’s views of justice are put in place, the meaning of a just society based on their outlooks becomes more intricate. Based on my own personal perspectives, a just society is an environment where people have access to all the necessities that a human must have to survive and where wealth is although not equally, but fairly distributed among everyone. Anke Graness’ Concepts of Justice in

Social justice is that status of the society where “equity” and “just treatment” of individuals exists. It is not limited to safeguarding the rights but also comes with responsibility to maintain a “society for all” providing equal opportunities. A socially just society can be achieved after examining the inequalities and seeking opportunity to curb the same by total elimination. The concept of social justice varies with the different philosophical approaches about the distribution or allocation of resources.

The Focus on Faith theme of option for the poor and vulnerable proves to be very helpful in guiding my actions. This theme supports my ethical and moral stance that we must be kind and compassionate regardless of the situation. This theme reminds me that I have been blessed with many privileges but should not be blinded by them, as unfortunately there are many people who society has abandoned. I should use the privileges I have to help those in need. I should continue to do volunteer work and take any opportunities I can to assist the less fortunate. As the theme states, I should work towards the common good and act with a loving and compassionate heart.

Welfare is associated with prosperity. Prosperity matters because it contributes to our welfare. In order to clearly understand this concept, utilitarianism needs to be explored. Freedom, on the other hand, seeks to give everyone a fair chance at success. Freedom and justice are intertwined because justice means respecting certain universal human rights, and some of these rights include rights to freedom of speech and religious liberty. The freedom approach to justice has two main domains of rivalry, the laissez-faire camp and the fairness camp. The laissez-faire camp are free market liberations who believe in justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults. The fairness camp contains theorists

The concept of equality is multi-faceted and widely debated among scholars. While there is no singular definition for equality, equality deals with the distribution of some “thing” in a specific domain. For this paper, equality will be narrowed down to the domains of economic and political. It is essential to note that distinct types of equality can become conditions for equality in a different domain. In this case, economic equality will be analyzed as a condition for political equality. How is it exactly that economic equality can undermine political equality? By answering this question, this paper will prove that economic equality is a necessary pre-condition for political equality. I will do this by analyzing the political writings of

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a

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:-