The definition of 'social justice' is imprecise. That's where the rub begins. It has precise meaning only for its user, is what the user wants it to be. So, can it be precisely defined? Perhaps, if we focus upon its application.
In his 1999 book The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote, "In politics, the great non-sequitur of our time is that 1) things are not right and that 2) the government should make them right. Where right all too often means cosmic justice, trying to set things right means writing a blank check for a never-ending expansion of government power."
That explains the ultimate objective of social justice: a never-ending expansion of government power [emphasis mine].
Sowell defines social justice (which he labels 'cosmic justice,' the relief of all misfortune) as an effort which seeks to eliminate undeserved disadvantages for selected groups. He defines 'undeserved disadvantages' by referencing Dr. Thomas Nagle's definition: 'unequal starting points' certain people have through no fault of their own.
What governmental policies (which Sowell universally rejects) can be enacted to reduce or eliminate unequal starting points? To answer that, Sowell references John Rawls, who insisted 'having everyone play by the same rules or be judged by the same standards' was not sufficient. True equality of opportunity meant 'adjusting starting points to provide everyone with equal prospects of success from equal individual efforts,' and 'putting [selected] segments of society in the position that they would have been in but for some undeserved...
Read more HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment