One of the most familiar terms heard or read today is “social justice.” Ironically, “social justice” is anything but justice. It basically represents double standards, inequality, partiality, prejudice, racism, selectivity, and subjectivity. It has to be one of modernity’s cleverest and most subtle paradoxes.Perhaps the best way to expose it as a paradox is by revealing what genuine and true justice demands when applied evenly and honestly to all people. True justice demands equality, fairness, honesty, impartiality, and to be nonprejudicial, nonracial, nonselective, objective, and most importantly possessing a single standard toward all.Let’s consider pronounced traits representing “social justice” today. It must, however, be recognized that the words used to
Topics:
Helen Louise Herndon considers the following as important: 6b) Mises.org, Featured, newsletter
This could be interesting, too:
Guillermo Alcala writes USD/CHF slides to test 0.8645 support with US inflation data on tap
Swissinfo writes Swiss central bank posts CHF62.5bn profit
Nachrichten Ticker - www.finanzen.ch writes Trump-Faktor und Marktbedingungen könnten für neuen Bitcoin-Rekord sorgen
Charles Hugh Smith writes Is Social Media Actually “Media,” Or Is It Something Else?
One of the most familiar terms heard or read today is “social justice.” Ironically, “social justice” is anything but justice. It basically represents double standards, inequality, partiality, prejudice, racism, selectivity, and subjectivity. It has to be one of modernity’s cleverest and most subtle paradoxes.
Perhaps the best way to expose it as a paradox is by revealing what genuine and true justice demands when applied evenly and honestly to all people. True justice demands equality, fairness, honesty, impartiality, and to be nonprejudicial, nonracial, nonselective, objective, and most importantly possessing a single standard toward all.
Let’s consider pronounced traits representing “social justice” today. It must, however, be recognized that the words used to define or describe “social justice” subtly represent the opposite of the original and true meanings of those words. The most common words used to define “social justice” are diversity, inclusion and equity.
Admittedly, the main effort intentionally appears to correct former injustices to many. If only that correction were achieved. Such an achievement would mean no group of people is left out, excluded, or treated with prejudice and unequal treatment. Correcting past injustices to some groups of people should never include creating injustices to other groups of people.
When it comes to diversity, race and gender cases are not treated justly because the qualifications for selection are neither equal nor objective. In some situations involving institutions, favor is given based on race or gender. Objective qualifications are ignored giving a partial, prejudicial, racist, selective, subjective, and unequal boost to some. That includes favoring one race over other races, such as black over Asian or Caucasian, and female over male. As to gender or the latter, it may also include sexual orientation.
Regarding inclusion, there is applied an unnecessary and ill-named principle called “safe space” in some organizations, clubs or dormitories. This has nothing to do with bodily protection or safety but rather self-indulgent psychological reasons, such as race. This anomaly, in effect, creates exclusion and segregation. It fosters activities and places of being solely with one’s own racial group and fosters disunity and racism.
Then there’s that ubiquitous term, equity. Based on appearance, we understand it to relate to equality. However, it’s become the very opposite of its intended definition. Here, too, equality is ignored.
There is no better description of this than that cited by writer Christopher F. Rufo, conservative American journalist:
“Equity demands the opposite: categorizing individuals into group identities and assigning disparate treatment to members of those groups, seeking to ‘equalize’ what would otherwise be considered unjust outcomes. What this means in practice is that members of certain groups get favored, others disfavored: in short, inequality justified under the ideology of ‘equity.’”
Creating new injustices as a means of correcting old injustices harms those being favored by lowering standards of excellence and harming innocent groups or persons. Justice’s purpose is to protect the innocent from evil or undue harm. “Social justice” protects only some, including even the unqualified, while harming guiltless, inoffensive and highly qualified individuals. The most important single standard is eradicated. These new injustices are basically a double standard par excellence.
Back to the demands of true justice, such as equality, fairness, honesty, impartiality, and being nonprejudicial, nonracial, nonselective, objective, and most importantly possessing a single standard toward all. What in this list could possibly be considered unfair or unjust? In fact, don’t they ensure genuine diversity, total inclusivity, and unconditional equity?
When it comes to “true justice,” our aim and pursuit should be to achieve what is right for all and not to repeat former mistakes and injustices toward any.
It’s time to reject “social justice” as is practiced, to be replaced with honest, “true justice” for all!
Tags: Featured,newsletter