Why Are We So Adamant About Upholding Social Justice?

The Accord Between Our Individuality And Being Subordinate To Society Is Continually Under Rectification.

This article was initially published by Illumination on Medium!


Photo by Cody Pulliam on Unsplash

Life in a collective sense swirls around our collective consciousness. Its fundamental necessity is the set of common sentiments, ideas, and moral mindsets. Our life in commune with the other individuals in our little world exploits the aforementioned unifying forces, which go beyond expressly moral conscience to a shared understanding of social norms.

Collective life comes with sundry intricacies and sacrifices to its constituencies. As societies develop and expand, so do the variances in common sentiments, ideas, and moral mindsets, thus straining "that one unifying force" amongst us all!

Once we struggle to find, nurture and even promote our collective consciousness, we must assure justice and righteousness for everyone around us. That is the concept we like to call "Social right."

A contemporary society that is fair and based on collective consciousness also assumes the responsibility of maintaining that society's security through "Social Justice."

Social justice in the modern sense pertains to the wealth allotment and distribution of opportunities and privileges within a society based on the accepted common values of that institution. That is granted by fulfilling societal roles by a given community member. In other words, we as individuals ought to give up personal rights today with the hope that the mainstream will ensure our civil liberties.

Today's civil rights movement prioritizes overcoming social mobility barriers, creating safety nets, and economic morality. To ensure the distribution of wealth and equal opportunity, some of the actions, to mention, include social insurance, taxation, public health, public school, public services, labor law, and regulation of markets.

But, the social justice stir also invokes a critical argument. The controversy reaches back to Bartolomé de las Casas, a 16th-century Spanish landowner, one of the first Spanish settlers in America, and a bishop, famed as a historian and social reformer.

Las Casas philosophically argued for the first time on differences among human beings. He advocated measures incorporating gender, ethnicity, and social equality, to support justice for migrants, prisoners, the environment, and the physically and developmentally disabled.

Then again, variations that relate social justice to a reciprocal relationship with society are interceded by differences in cultural traditions and at the expense of individual responsibility toward society. It comes with strict personal commitment and equilibrium between the admission of a person to power and its responsible use.

“It never ceases to stun me how some folks can throw around Buzzwords like Social security, Social right, and Social justice, failing to realize that such mottoes have only served them an inequity by perpetually defacing their identity.” Dr. Adam Tabriz

The friction between the social right and its potential injustice comes when we let ourselves give away our identities in exchange for social security and social justice. once we denounce our "individual liberty," be it partially or entirely, we surrender to the "Tyranny of the Masses." That attitude is an inherent phenomenon in corruption-prone democracy that threatens us all—gambling away individual rights for societal guarantees upshots in the oppression of minority groups and us as unique beings. We can research social justice rhetoric back to the 18th century classical and Christian philosophical sources from Plato, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas.

Luigi Taparelli, an Italian Jesuit scholar of the "Society of Jesus" and counter-revolutionary who coined social justice in the early 1840s, established the natural law principle that corresponded to the evangelical doctrine; of "brotherly love."

Taparelli's vision inspired the early 20th-century international law and institutions and was the prelude to establishing the "International Labor Organization." Then it was generally accepted by many social leaders that we could develop universal and lasting peace if we based our social structure upon social justice. That marked the era when social justice became central to the social contract doctrine, primarily by John Rawls in "A Theory of Justice (1971)."

As of 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme Action treat social justice as a purpose of human rights education.

But, Is Social Justice The Actual Norm Of Today!?

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

Social justice can be close to being fair given that unique typical profile and systematic community referendums from its "individual" constituents. It sounds ideal yet prone to corruption and collusion. The unanimity of reciprocal relationship with the society renders it effortless to uphold societal righteousness. Implementing social norms without periodic social referendums is destined to create a tyranny of the masses.

When we radically use social injustice as justification to block the free expression of others, thus we donate to the social injustice.

Social justice is nothing short of a political, philosophical notion centered around promoting equality among people. One can revisit the classic example of social justice structure in the history books within socialist (communist) economies.

Social justice usually seeks to elevate or degrade the economic status of various classes defined by a predetermined profile such as race, gender, and religion.

The Accord Between Our Individuality And Being Subordinate To Society Is Continually Revising.

Historically human beings have sought to unite the masses on the vision of collective consciousness, hoping that it may serve as the glue or trait that connects people. However, unaware; we must lower our expectations, sacrifice individual identity and give in to the tyranny of bureaucracy when all we need is to uphold the "Golden Rule," nurture individual liberty, maintain protean transparency and seek personal justice.