Talk:Social justice

Article lead

• That opening sentence is inconsistent, incoherent, confused, and generally dreadful. It needs to be thrown out entirely. 64.18.9.208 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)KZ

Surely someone can come up with a better definition of "social justice" that the current one in the lead sentence: "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being."

• "Refers" is a weak word here. (Don't tell us what SJ is about, tell us what it is.)
• "Creating" a society or institution is surely not integral to it.
• I'd wager it probably has something to do with justice in a society. But how is it distinguished from simple justice?

Also, does the current footnote 3, pointing to a Michigan bill designed to distinguish between birth and abortion, really belong in the lead sentence? I'm guessing this is a sign of some ideological wars that have transpired on this page. Surely a definition of social justice (the concept) can be formulated without applying it to each social issue. Frappyjohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any discussion (and the continued absence of a definition of the article's subject), I went ahead and inserted a simple, tautologous definition: "Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society." Feel free to polish it, but keep it tautologous or add a citation. Thanks. Frappyjohn (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this subject, but I've got to say the new definition that was put in the lead is not very good. Basically, you've defined Social Justice by saying it is Justice in Society. This kind of goes against the general rule of "Don't use the word you're defining in the definition." I feel the older lead was better, but again, I'm not knowledgeable on the subject. Natt the Hatt (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Is part of the problem with definition the fact that SJ purports to be an objective standard yet is based on subjective views of what is just? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.228.205 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed Uncited & Overbroad First Crit. Paragraph

Hey, all. I just removed the first paragraph of the Criticism section (which had been sitting there with a CN tag since 2016, and rightly so) and wanted to explain the removal. Here’s the paragraph I removed, for reference:

Many authors criticize the idea that there exists an objective standard of social justice. Moral relativists deny that there is any kind of objective standard for justice in general. Non-cognitivists, moral skeptics, moral nihilists, and most logical positivists deny the epistemic possibility of objective notions of justice. Political realists believe that any ideal of social justice is ultimately a mere justification for the status quo.

The biggest issue (after the paragraph not being cited) is that the paragraph is treating the metaethical views of a bunch of philosophers who think objective moral facts either don’t exist or are unknowable as if those views speak directly to social justice. It’s not false that if social justice is an ethical issue (it is) and if there are no knowable objective moral facts (as these metaethical views assert), then that would mean there are no knowable objective facts about social justice. But we need an explicit connection to be made. Treating these metaethical views as if they’re direct criticisms of social justice would be like treating the views of someone who believes we’re living in a simulation as if those views criticize evolutionary biology. An implication can be drawn, but not explicitly.

A less-important issue is that the author of the paragraph is subtly mischaracterizing many of these metaethical views so as to lump them all together as “anti-ethical facts” views. I can go into this in greater detail if anyone wants, but the linked Wiki pages do a pretty good job of showing the relevant differences between these views.

If anyone thinks this was a bad edit or wants to discuss this further, just let me know. Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding political correctness to the list of what's Social Justice

Can being politically correct (a 1980s-90s-2000s social trend) be compared to a social justice warrior instead of being more a civil rights activist (the Civil Rights Movement) to literally changed the law in this country back in the 1950s-60s-70s? There is history of racial integration and opposition to hatred of Jews (anti-semitism) in the 1920s, 30 and 40s, including laws granted women the right to vote and the rising unpopularity of the KKK because they targeted white ethnics and Catholics at the time. And in the 2020s going to continue onward to the 2030s and 40s, we should make the article mention social justice like the PC fad are moralizing society on how they view social minority groups, their legal status and the destigmatization of anyone "different", the intro page doesn't mention (or does it need to) PCness. Adinneli (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Social Justice has nothing to do with SJW or PC. Social justice is a concept. SJW is a pejorative. PC (and SJW) are both used primarily by critics of those that support whatever pet peeve is happening that week. Its relationship to Social Justice as a topic is rarely discussed. Koncorde (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, critics shout "that's being PC" or "you're a SJW radical extremist" when someone stated an action, custom and law should be abolished, abandoned and repealed if that is infringing a person's civil rights, freedoms and liberties is an attack of the social justice cause against the many forms of hate: bigotry, "bias" crimes, cultural appropriation: to steal from a sacred, sentimental and throughout history, prohibited or intolerated expression of one group's culture for the privileged group in power's personal, monetary and public or popular gain, defamation, discrimination, "Harm/Hurt" speech, humor or jokes, marginalization, scapegoating, (self) segregation if not in legal form (safe spaces by the minority in-group's area of choice), slurs or terms, stereotyping and stigmatization. In the 1990s, the critics stated "we can't say Negro, Colored or even Afro and Black global diaspora replaced the other two terms?" when we are addressing "African-Americans, persons of color or even Caribbean-Americans and Blak communities worldwide". Go back to the 1980s and there was a huge backlash against the "N-word", however in 2022, there's a consensus that the variation of the "N-word" muttered in pop culture music or within the in-group in different jest or context is reserved for people of color, but primarily to be used among African-Americans and anyone part-Black (it all depends if they're friends) or let's say Latinx, East plus South Asian, Middle Easterner, Native American, and Pacific Islander has a "N-word pass" a privilege they can't abuse. And I'll end this: the article already described social justice orgs or groups are more of being descendants of civil rights orgs or activism, to call them "politically correct" in the late 20th century was an attempt to delegitimize social justice against minority groups long denied the most basic or constitutional rights because the groups were Black, Jewish, Gay and/or Women (examples), though in my state CA US because they were Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Native American, and Pacific Islander. Adinneli (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Head of Socrates in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme (Rome).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference to Jordan Peterson

I strongly question the reference to Jordan Peterson's view in the "Criticism" section. This person is known for his polarizing views, and his tendency to dismiss factual arguments and to propagate conspiracy theories. I don't think he articulates a credible critique that should be discussed here. Hayek's views are more important to address in this article I believe.

I won't make the edit myself but I believe it is important to note it here. Sapin2 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)