• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%

  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%

  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Total voters
    57
RGacky3 said:
No ... It does'nt, this is just nonsense sophestry, the same can be said about any word.
Click to expand...

OK, how about Hayek's "The Mirage of Social Justice"? :)
 
Canell said:
OK, how about Hayek's "The Mirage of Social Justice"? :)
Click to expand...

Hayek is a psudo-economist, not anyone to be taken seriously, especially on philosohpical or theological issues such as this.
 
RGacky3 said:
Hayek is a psudo-economist, not anyone to be taken seriously, especially on philosohpical or theological issues such as this.
Click to expand...

huh. Well that's unfortunate. I was looking forward to actually discussing this with you, as I think you are on to something, but it turns out that you are as quick to turn into an ad hominem hackattack as anyone else.

zero points for failing to address the point raised.
 
Boo Radley said:
Merely justice. Anyone seeing anything else has been drinking some koolaid, IMHO.
Click to expand...

no. There is no more "justice" in social justice than there was in the original injustice that created the issue. You do not justly raise some up by trodding on others.
 
other , humanity
 
cpwill said:
huh. Well that's unfortunate. I was looking forward to actually discussing this with you, as I think you are on to something, but it turns out that you are as quick to turn into an ad hominem hackattack as anyone else.

zero points for failing to address the point raised.
Click to expand...

What point did I not answer? Asking me to read a book by Hayek isn't a point.
 
RGacky3 said:
What point did I not answer? Asking me to read a book by Hayek isn't a point.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Summaries are available for free on Amazon. Ad hominem isn't a point, either. It's just a particularly mean-spirited strawman.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: Summaries are available for free on Amazon. Ad hominem isn't a point, either. It's just a particularly mean-spirited strawman.
Click to expand...

If you want to make a point to respond to then make it, asking me to read a book, or even a summery of someone who I don't take seriously as an economist much less a philosopher or theologian (of which this topic is about) isn't a point, and as such doesn't require a response.

If you have a point, I can respond to it, I wasn't making a point by saying I'm not gonna read a book by Hayek, who I don't take seriously, I was responding to someone who made that request.
 
RGacky3 said:
If you want to make a point to respond to then make it, asking me to read a book, or even a summery of someone who I don't take seriously as an economist much less a philosopher or theologian (of which this topic is about) isn't a point, and as such doesn't require a response.

If you have a point, I can respond to it, I wasn't making a point by saying I'm not gonna read a book by Hayek, who I don't take seriously, I was responding to someone who made that request.
Click to expand...

Asking someone to summarize an argument is fine. It's not incumbent upon you to do others' research. Responding with an ad hominem only reflects on you, not on the argument to which you are nominally responding.
 
cpwill said:
Asking someone to summarize an argument is fine. It's not incumbent upon you to do others' research. Responding with an ad hominem only reflects on you, not on the argument to which you are nominally responding.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an adhominem attack, it wasn't even an argument, it was an explination as to why I wasn't going to waste my time.

But go ahead, if you have a point to make, make it.
 
Its just another word for socialism
 
RGacky3 said:
Hayek is a psudo-economist, not anyone to be taken seriously, especially on philosohpical or theological issues such as this.
Click to expand...

Well, you are not a professor either. Or are you? :)
Anyway, I don't like the term "social justice". It's an oxymoron. "Social evening" may be, but not "justice".
 
cpwill said:
no. There is no more "justice" in social justice than there was in the original injustice that created the issue. You do not justly raise some up by trodding on others.
Click to expand...

No. That's a misunderstanding. A talking point that promotes a superficial view. The effort is to be "just," and not trod on anyone. Making sure there is no discrimination isn't trodding. Making sure rules are fair isn't trodding. Making sure there is no unfair advantage, like laws favoring one side over the other, isn't trodding.
 
Canell said:
Well, you are not a professor either. Or are you? :)
Anyway, I don't like the term "social justice". It's an oxymoron. "Social evening" may be, but not "justice".
Click to expand...

It isn't an oxymoron at all, you have individual justice, i.e. the right way for an individual to be treated, or the right thing for an individual to do, and then social justice, the right way for a society to be set up, the right foundations that a society should be built on.
 
RGacky3 said:
It isn't an oxymoron at all, you have individual justice, i.e. the right way for an individual to be treated, or the right thing for an individual to do, and then social justice, the right way for a society to be set up, the right foundations that a society should be built on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. :lol:

And what is right and what isn't will decide... who? Let me guess - the Leader.
As in this old anekdote.

1. The boss is always right.
2. If the boss isn't right, see point 1.

:roll:
 
Canell said:
Yeah, right. :lol:

And what is right and what isn't will decide... who? Let me guess - the Leader.
As in this old anekdote.

1. The boss is always right.
2. If the boss isn't right, see point 1.

:roll:
Click to expand...

You guessed wrong .... what is right is the whole question of moral or social philosophy. In the question of justice I'd say whats "right" is what's "fair" or "just."

But I don't get the point of your post there, other than trying to setup a strawman, no one has argued "the leader decides" I've never even gotten close to arguing that, it's pretty silly of you to insinuate that.
 
RGacky3 said:
You guessed wrong .... what is right is the whole question of moral or social philosophy. In the question of justice I'd say whats "right" is what's "fair" or "just."
Click to expand...

What's just... Hm, let me give it a shot then.

Flat tax is fair, progressive isn't.
Equality is fair, privileges are not.
From each according his abilities, to each according his contribution/merits - fair
From each according his abilities, to each according his needs - NOT fair

That's what is fair to me. Agree? :)
 
Canell said:
What's just... Hm, let me give it a shot then.

Flat tax is fair, progressive isn't.
Equality is fair, privileges are not.
From each according his abilities, to each according his contribution/merits - fair
From each according his abilities, to each according his needs - NOT fair

That's what is fair to me. Agree? :)
Click to expand...

I agree that it's fair to YOU, but I don't agree.

A flat tax is not just, because the point of taxation is making sure society can function well and is funded, and thus taxation should do the least damage possible to individual finances, and a 10% on a poor person does MUCH MORE DAMAGE than 10% on a billionare in real life consequences.

Of coarse equality is fair and privileges are not, but in practice it's almost impossible to get that ideal, we should strive for it though.

To each according to his contribution/merits depends 100% on how one judges or measures contribution or merit, the market doesn't measure it correctly, or on what basis one measures it, it's impossible to really measure merit or contribution. Take a factory, what does the guy doing security contribute? How do you measure that? Or a teacher ... how do you measure that?

Also who says that the purpose for work should be material compensation? I think the purpose is to make society run, to make things work, and in a REAL democratic society, where youre work and output is truely controlled by yourself and you have a say over the things that effect you, the whole idea of wages/profit doesn't make sense.
 
RGacky3 said:
I agree that it's fair to YOU, but I don't agree.
Click to expand...

See, that's what I was writing about. The position of rightness is a matter of power/authority, not fairness.
That's what bothers me with this "social justice" - it implies rightness when it is just a statement. That is, the one who is talking social justice is playing God.

RGacky3 said:
A flat tax is not just, because the point of taxation is making sure society can function well and is funded, and thus taxation should do the least damage possible to individual finances, and a 10% on a poor person does MUCH MORE DAMAGE than 10% on a billionare in real life consequences.
Click to expand...

Well, I can pretend to be God too and say - NO, it's the other way round! What does that prove? Nothing.
 
Canell said:
See, that's what I was writing about. The position of rightness is a matter of power/authority, not fairness.
That's what bothers me with this "social justice" - it implies rightness when it is just a statement. That is, the one who is talking social justice is playing God.
Click to expand...

In that case ANYONE that makes ANY "should" statement, even "everyone should have liberty" it playing God, we are gonna have to make moral decisions sometimes, and we are going to have to make ethical choices on how we relate to society.

I don't think might makes right, I think there IS a moral reality, and I can be mistaken about it, so can you, so can everyone else, but we have to try.

Well, I can pretend to be God too and say - NO, it's the other way round! What does that prove? Nothing.
Click to expand...

Ok ... But we still have to find out how to relate to each other in a society ...
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok ... But we still have to find out how to relate to each other in a society ...
Click to expand...

Look no further. We will relate MY WAY. :mrgreen:

/thread :lol: :lol:
 
Canell said:
Look no further. We will relate MY WAY. :mrgreen:

/thread :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok ... I don't get what your point is here, are you leaving DP now since you think there is nothing to talk about when it comes to politics?
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok ... I don't get what your point is here, are you leaving DP now since you think there is nothing to talk about when it comes to politics?
Click to expand...

No, I was just debunking "social justice". You were defending it. We made our statements. Who is right and who is wrong (if ever) only God knows.
 
Canell said:
No, I was just debunking "social justice". You were defending it. We made our statements. Who is right and who is wrong (if ever) only God knows.
Click to expand...

That isn't debunking "social justice" it's debunking ALL political theories, and ALL moral statements, infact it's debunking ALL value statements in general. If that's true than there is no justice, there is no right or wrong, there is nothing.

I don't buy that, there are things that are "good."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom