Social Justice

[rhartford]

I am presenting a talk with this thread’s title at The Atlas Society / Free Minds Institute 2010 Summer Seminar, July 3. Recent posts on a few threads make me realize I am giving this talk because it needs to be said, not because I have great expertise. Below are several excerpts from the current draft. Any advice or criticism is welcome.

In a few days I’ll have to lock down the 4000 words that will fit in my allotted time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My goal today is to begin restoring the term “Social Justice” to its rightful place. My hope - to promote advocacy of true “Social Justice.” My dream - to inspire community organizers to launch a large-scale movement for true “Social Justice.”

The current use of the term “Social Justice”, as a slippery, nebulous, misused, abused, and manipulative term, must be countered and corrected. Too many people use the term, “Social Justice,” to promote injustice. I will call them advocates of “Social Injustice.”

Human Nature and Human Choice

Your life is determined by your actions. Actions are based on motives and goals. Choosing motives and goals requires a science of choice. That science is ethics.

Ethics

[A few sentences on fundamentals of ethics.]

Social Philosophy

Ethics, extended to society, guides us to seek voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions that respect each person’s right to pursue his or her own well-being and happiness. That is the essence of social justice.

Political Philosophy

[The nature of political freedom and tyranny]

The foundational ethical, social, and political ideas I have described ground the true meaning of “Social Justice” as a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned.

[i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.]

[i contrast the “objective moral criterion” of judgment used by advocates of “Social Justice” and the criterion used by advocates of “Social Injustice.’]

The religious and non-religious can and must join forces to promote true “Social Justice,” If the non-religious do not advocate forcing the religious to support their social programs, and the religious do not advocate forcing the non-religious to conform to their religious doctrines, all can join forces to promote a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned.

[i Describe David Kelley’s work on benevolence.]

[Then some examples of benevolent social activism.]

[Then some activism techniques including a Social Justice Analog of the “Nolan Chart”]

[A final pep-talk from Don Quixote.]

Edited June 24, 2010 by Robert Hartford

[George H. Smith]

Robert,

If you haven't already read it, you may want to take a look at Hayek's scathing critique of "social justice" in Volume 2, Chapter 9 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty.

Hayek would take issue with your attempt to restore the notion of social justice to its "rightful place." He thinks the concept was tainted with collectivist premises pretty much from the very beginning. The following passage (pp. 66-7) sums up Hayek's attitude:

What we have to deal with in the case of "social justice" is simply a quasi-religious superstition of the kind which we should respectfully leave in peace so long as it merely makes those happy who hold it, but which we must fight when it becomes the pretext of coercing other men. And the prevailing belief in "social justice" is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.

Here is what Hayek (p. 97) says in the conclusion of his lengthy discussion:

What I hope to have made clear is that the phrase "social justice" is not, as most people probably feel, an innocent expression of good will towards the less fortunate, but that it has become a dishonest insinuation that one ought to agree to a demand of some special interest which can give no real reason for it. If political discussion is to become honest it is necessary that people should recognize that the term is intellectually disreputable, the mark of demagogy or cheap journalism which responsible thinkers ought to be ashamed to use because, once its vacuity is recognized, its use is dishonest. I may, as a result of long endeavours to trace the destructive effect which the invocation of "social justice" has had on our moral sensitivity, and of again and again finding even eminent thinkers thoughtlessly using the phrase, have becoming unduly allergic to it, but I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term "social justice."

Ghs

[RightJungle]

Robert,

I have to agree with Robert. My immediate reaction to your post was to plead with you to choose another topic within the branch of philosophy that covers politics and economics. Our popular talk show hosts have only recently cottoned to what is wrong with "social justice" and I would like to see the definition left intact - forever.

Maybe you could put your focus on Egoism or Individuality or simply Justice itself with no modifiers. Remember Rand's admonition to avoid changing definitions for no good reason.

[rhartford]

Hayek would take issue with your attempt to restore the notion of social justice to its "rightful place." He thinks the concept was tainted with collectivist premises pretty much from the very beginning.

Thank you, George. I will definitely use a Hayek quotation to illustrate the false view of "Social Justice" (a.k.a. "Social Injustice") that permeates our culture.

Our popular talk show hosts have only recently cottoned to what is wrong with "social justice" and I would like to see the definition left intact - forever.

Maybe you could put your focus on Egoism or Individuality or simply Justice itself with no modifiers. Remember Rand's admonition to avoid changing definitions for no good reason.

Even criticism prompts one to think, so thank you Mary. Maybe an example will help.

Suppose someone came into the kitchen, pointed at the stove, and said, "That's a really nice kitchen table." You would point out and correct the misuse of perfectly valid concepts.

Suppose someone points to a government agent forcibly interfering (by means of coercive legislation) with a doctor / patient relationship and suppose that person marvels at this great example of social justice. You would properly point out this is social injustice and the person is misusing the concepts.

Justice is applicable in interpersonal, social, and political contexts. One might even say one should treat onself with justice. If every instance of misuse of the term "Social Justice" is met with rejection and explanation of what justice really means in a social context, we can only benefit.

[9thdoctor]

[i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.]

You briefly treat Rawls? This makes me think of the joke in flowcharting where you label a step in the process as “a miracle occurs”.

Anyway, I didn’t see anything about equality of results, I think of that as a key component of social justice in mainstream thought. I have a friend who lurks here, and he’s a huge Rush fan, we’re talking way out of proportion to reality, even if you were to include the noumenal realm. So he’ll be thrilled to see me link this:

[BaalChatzaf]

[i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.]

You briefly treat Rawls? This makes me think of the joke in flowcharting where you label a step in the process as "a miracle occurs".

Anyway, I didn't see anything about equality of results, I think of that as a key component of social justice in mainstream thought. I have a friend who lurks here, and he's a huge Rush fan, we're talking way out of proportion to reality, even if you were to include the noumenal realm. So he'll be thrilled to see me link this:

This is the first time I have heard a -Rush- number. I thank I have become a fan. I will go out a purchase some CDs. My goodness. What intelligent lyrics!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I have noticed that social justice as it is defined and used by the liberal lefties has a Procrustean aspect to it. The mighty shall be brought low and humble raised up. Those who are too talented, too smart, too ambitious and (God help us) too successful will be adjusted forthwith. See -Harrison Bergeron- by Kurt Vonegut.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

[i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.]

I suppose Harrison Bergeron is the Vonnegut you’ll be citing? I didn’t get the reference last night, it’s an excellent illustration of equality of results. I’m a big admirer of Thomas Sowell, but I’m not sure how his views are distinct from Rand’s on this issue. I’m interested to see your “Social Justice Analog of the ‘Nolan Chart’”. Your outline needs more fleshing out for me to make informed comments.

This is the first time I have heard a -Rush- number. I thank I have become a fan. I will go out a purchase some CDs. My goodness. What intelligent lyrics!

Their best of collection, Chronicles, is a good place to start. The lyricist is/was a Rand fan, he definitely had a period in the late '70's when the influence was stark. A lot of people have been introduced to AR through them.

[George H. Smith]

Justice is applicable in interpersonal, social, and political contexts. One might even say one should treat onself with justice.

"Justice," as traditionally used in political philosophy, is a strictly interpersonal concept. That's the point about social justice. "Social" as opposed to what? All justice is social. The expression is redundant, so we should be suspicious whenever anyone uses it. Appeals to "social justice" are typically intended to trump mere "justice."

As Hayek points out, the phrase "social justice" is a synonym for distributive justice, which specifies how goods should be coercively allocated in a society according to someone's notion of fairness.

I make these points for the sake of conversation. You obviously know this stuff already.

Ghs

[rhartford]

I suppose Harrison Bergeron is the Vonnegut you’ll be citing? I didn’t get the reference last night, it’s an excellent illustration of equality of results.

I will mention "Harrison Bergeron."

-----------------------------------------

The best and prettiest dancers were weighed down with weights and required to wear masks, so no one would feel envious of a “graceful gesture or pretty face.” The smarter and more thoughtful wore headphones that emitted a screech if they started to think too clearly. Announcing one’s superiority was a capital offence.

------------------------------------------

Readers may be interested in "2081" - the movie adaptation of "Harrison Bergeron" - available on DVD from Amazon. Trailer below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6TTNKdgSk

[rhartford]

I’m interested to see your “Social Justice Analog of the ‘Nolan Chart’”.

I don't know how to embed it, so I made it my avatar.

The vertical axis is Personal Responsibility from Irresponsible to Self-Responsible.

The horizontal axis is Personal Wealth from Poor to Rich.

One of the items on the chart, in the lower right, is Bernie Madoff (Before Prison). A useful feature of the chart is the ability to show social dynamics. The arrow pointing to the left from Bernie represents his change in location as a consequence of the court decision.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Robert Hartford

[rhartford]

"Justice," as traditionally used in political philosophy, is a strictly interpersonal concept. That's the point about social justice. "Social" as opposed to what? All justice is social. The expression is redundant . .

I mostly agree. But in today's cultural environment I think the redundancy is necessary to counter the false views of "Social Justice."

I start with Rand's ideas, and specialize them to social philosophy:

“Do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a [person’s] character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion?” She answers, “Yes, that concept is ‘justice.’”

This is where advocates of “Social Justice” and advocates of “Social Injustice” part ways, they differ on the meaning of “an objective moral criterion.” Advocates of true “Social Justice,” base the moral criterion on self-responsible action in the service of one’s own well-being and happiness, leading to socially just, voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions.

On the other hand, advocates of “Social Injustice” base the moral criterion on service to others, by force if they can’t get voluntary consent. They arrogantly proclaim, with the moral righteousness of a slave owner, to have the right and power to force you to bow to their tyrannical wishes. They want to compel forced service - involuntary servitude. That is unjust based on Ayn Rand’s secular view, and is unjust based on commonly held religious views against theft and slavery.

I then characterize a socially just society as a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned.

The bolded portion, which I repeat a few times, is most important to get right - where right means factually correct and socially persuasive.

[rhartford]

[i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.]

You briefly treat Rawls? This makes me think of the joke in flowcharting where you label a step in the process as “a miracle occurs”.

Just call me a miracle worker wannabe. Over 10% of my talk is the summary of Rawls.

A book by John Rawls, “The Theory of Justice,” supports the current false view of “Social Justice,” with its government controls and subsidies, paternalism, and wealth redistribution.

“Veil of Ignorance”

Rawls asks the reader to think about justice while standing behind a “veil of ignorance,” not knowing if you are rich or poor, intellectually above average or below average, athlete or couch potato. To stand behind the veil is an interesting technique to eliminate personal bias and promote objectivity.

Behind the veil, he asserts we would agree to only “allow” disparities of wealth if those disparities made the “least well-off person better off.” This, in a sense, appeals to our humanity and fairness because the voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions of a just society do benefit everyone. Even the least well-off person is better off.

But, Rawls falls into error because he ignores the essence of justice – voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions. His arbitrary assessments of wealth disparities lead too easily to the injustice of the next step, to stamp one’s foot with envy, indignation, or “do-gooder” mentality, take from those with wealth, and redistribute it to make the “least well-off people better off.”

“Factors Arbitrary from a Moral Point of View”

Rawls also argues that differences in “rights and responsibilities” should not depend on “factors arbitrary from a moral point of view,” factors such as chance and good luck. He concludes you have no moral right to a lucky benefit, but everyone else does. Rawls’ ideal is to have reality shower all with the same degree of luck.

As usual, Rawls counts on our humanity and fairness. We do feel genuinely sorry for those born into unlucky circumstances. That we have been fortunate and they have not appeals to our sense of benevolence and charity.

But Rawls denies to the lucky the moral right to choose the nature of their benevolence and charity. Instead he advocates stealing from the lucky to benefit the unlucky.

“Fair Equal Opportunity”

And for Rawls, success is nearly all luck. Those who chose to work hard and succeed were lucky because they were raised to make the choice to work harder.

Those unlucky ones, who have less talent, had a deprived childhood, or were raised in a discouraging cultural environment, have a lower chance of success. Even if they have “formal equal opportunity,” they do not have a “fair equal opportunity” to succeed. For Rawls, force must be used to establish “fair equal opportunity.”

The subtitle of Rawls’ book should be “Rationalizations for the Forced Transfer of Wealth from the More Productive to Benefit the Less Productive,” or to use Rawls’ mentality, “from the Lucky to Benefit the Unlucky.”

[Rich Engle]

One thing about social justice (and I agree with your basic tenets) is that it is pointless if the talk about it is not translated into action.

I often think that if we spent as much (or more) time doing it (well-thought activism) as is done discussing it, things would be better.

There still remains, for example, a pretty fair number of strong humanists out there that understand how informed action works. I notice they spend only as much time as needed before getting into a problem and doing what they can to help alleviate some injustice, some form of unfortunate human suffering.

The realm of ideas is an important battlefield. But it is the precursor to the real turf.

[Peregrine777]

This is the first time I have heard a -Rush- number. I thank I have become a fan. I will go out a purchase some CDs. My goodness. What intelligent lyrics!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, I must warn you: Rush is a Canadian band, and over the years the sort of limp-wristed progressivism common to that cloistered part of the world eventually infected their music in way that would make an ornery misanthrope like yourself sick with saccharin overdose. You know -- notions of interpersonal goodwill and citizen-of-the-worldism. That sort of thing. I suppose it's an unavoidable aspect of growing old. I'm just saying this to inure you to the inevitable disillusionment.

However, that doesn't mean you can't enjoy them when they were at their most Randist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_7I5Ozq2rE

[9thdoctor]

Just call me a miracle worker wannabe. Over 10% of my talk is the summary of Rawls.

Looks like a fair summary of Rawls. I’ve always had a hard time understanding his theory, it has so many elements foreign to my way of thinking that it’s hard to hold it all in my head at once. Hence the joke earlier.

For the Nolan chart analog, you could get a photobucket.com account (it’s free), then you can post it as an image file. Or you can email it to me and I’ll upload it to my account. I tried copying and enlarging it from your avatar, and it went all fuzzy.

Bob, I must warn you: Rush is a Canadian band, and over the years the sort of limp-wristed progressivism common to that cloistered part of the world eventually infected their music in way that would make an ornery misanthrope like yourself sick with saccharin overdose.

18+ years lurking in the O’ist internet subculture, and your debut is an anti-Rush rant? Everyone will have to take my word for it, but imagine if Anton Lavey logged on to dis Satan. I’m shocked, shocked, I'm trying to find on youtube where James Cagney shouted "I'm flabbergasted!" but no luck…cool avatar BTW.

[Peregrine777]

18+ years lurking in the O’ist internet subculture, and your debut is an anti-Rush rant? Everyone will have to take my word for it, but imagine if Anton Lavey logged on to dis Satan.

Au contraire my time-travelling friend. While it is true that my esteem for the band -- their music, anyways -- has fallen over the years (and is certainly different than your fanboi caricature of yours truly) the fact remains that I still consider them a unique and valuable cultural phenomenon. Certainly an indelible part of my adolescent development.

It's just that, in this case, I am somewhat familiar with Bob's temperament from way back in the a.p.o days, and I feared that his blossoming interest in the Holy Trinity would be cut short by a possible brush with some of the more, ah, questionable moments in the Rush oeuvre. I mean, imagine if he had stumbled across something like "Hand Over Fist" or "Nobody's Hero" before getting to the Good Stuff? I imagine a Harrrumph and a Bah Humbug on his part -- and the dream dies stillborn.

I had to pipe up because I consider it my civic duty to ensure that everyone's Rush Experience™ is a safe and pleasant one. Think of me as a Geddy Appleseed, nurturing seeds wherever I go. I'm all aboot caring.

Now then, sorry for breaking into this otherwise Significant and Meaningful discussion. Carry on.

[9thdoctor]

your fanboi caricature of yours truly) the fact remains that I still consider them a unique and valuable cultural phenomenon. Certainly an indelible part of my adolescent development.

I'm afraid that if you don’t take the time to discuss something other than Rush, people are going to think it’s no caricature. You know you could start a Rush thread and share the insights you’ve gleaned over the decades. And while you're at it, how about uploading the Hasty Pudding documentary to YouTube?

Now then, sorry for breaking into this otherwise Significant and Meaningful discussion. Carry on.

Indeed, I only brought up The Trees because I didn’t realize he was using Harrison Bergeron for the same purpose.

[Peregrine777]

I'm afraid that if you don’t take the time to discuss something other than Rush, people are going to think it’s no caricature.

OK, I confess. I regularly sacrifice babies at the alter to Rush hidden in my attic.

You know you could start a Rush thread and share the insights you’ve gleaned over the decades.

I shall consider it.

Although, I suspect any further elucidation of my non-Rush insights might not go over so well here.

And while you're at it, how about uploading the Hasty Pudding documentary to YouTube?

I'm afraid the reference is lost on me so this will have to suffice:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/music/awkward-headbangers-rejoice-its-finally-cool-to-like-rush/article1592653/

Indeed, I only brought up The Trees because I didn’t realize he was using Harrison Bergeron for the same purpose.

Oh really? Now look what you've started. I hope you're pleased with yourself young man!

[9thdoctor]

Although, I suspect any further elucidation of my non-Rush insights might not go over so well here.

Yeah, sure, OL’s awfully monolithic, you’ll get run off by the gatekeepers in no time.

I'm afraid the reference is lost on me so this will have to suffice:

Funny, I thought the reference would only be overly cryptic to everyone else.

[rhartford]

I’m interested to see your “Social Justice Analog of the ‘Nolan Chart’”. Your outline needs more fleshing out for me to make informed comments.

The Atlas Society / Free Minds Institute 2010 Summer Seminar was an enjoyable and thought provoking experience.

The talk I presented "Social Justice: Restoring Its Proper Meaning" is available as a 4000 word pdf file. I would be happy to email it to you. Please email me at truesj (yes that stands for "true social justice") at the address, carolina.rr.com

If you find the ideas valuable, I encourage you to post it wherever you can and email it to others.