Social Justice

Social Justice from the perspective of those who advocate for social justice is a view that we need to instantiate, what are called positive rights, to balance the scales of justice. Society is viewed as having a collective conscience by which individuals can be judged. Of course, society, as a whole, does not enforce this type of justice. Instead representatives, often self-appointed, occasionally elected, individuals or groups, set out to condemn or protect someone or something by leveraging the belief that society is on their side. Social justice is not concerned with following the procedures of justice or the laws but calls into question the institutions or leaders of those institutions that are responsible for dispensing justice and enforcing laws. Social justice advocates may see themselves as a check or balance against the government, unless of course they are the government. A positive right is something that requires action on the part of society on behalf of an individual or group of individuals. Positive rights require someone (not everyone) to give up something they value for someone else to have that right. In the case of taxation to support those living below a certain income level, e.g. the welfare system, the government takes money from those who have earned above a certain level and give it to those who have not. This plays two different sides of equalization. First it redistributes money to make sure that everyone at least has a minimum, sustainable amount. Here the goal is to eliminate poverty, and many see this as an attainable positive goal. The second issue dealing with equalization is an increase in the inequity of reward for work. Someone who works hard does not get the complete value of their work, while someone who did not work, acquires value for nothing. These two essences of positive rights are the foundation of most modern social justice movements. Weather they accomplish these things by instantiating or augmenting laws that are then enforced, or by civil disobedience (e.g. riots, and destruction of property) is more about their philosophy. E.g. Marxist communism encourages violent revolt, while other groups may use more subtle methods. Positive rights force someone (not always everyone) to do something.

Negative rights often restrict what we can do but do not benefit a particular individual or group. Furthermore, they apply equally. For example, we have a law that restricts our ability to murder other people (which I am all for). The law equally restricts me from murdering you and you from murdering me. Negative rights, therefore, always apply to individuals equally regardless of their condition. Negative rights force everyone to refrain from something. But, you may say, the ten commandments contain positive commands to enforce the rights of parents to be respected. Actually, I'm not here to condemn positive rights completely. To do so would be to judge God's law and therefore conclude that God is unjust. But I will condemn the peer pressure style instantiation of positive rights by social justice. Let me give you an example to help you understand where I am coming from. Social Justice in Germany WWII: Germany as a society determined that Jews were detrimental to their society and proceeded to try to exterminate them. In this case:

Social Justice ≠ Justice

You may be inclined to say that this was not a social justice movement because it does not adhere to the types of things that social justice does today. Never-the-less, it does fit the definitions given by several social justice groups and respected scholars. Remember, the NAZI party leaders murdered Jews on the auspices of protecting society from decadence and corruption. This brings us to another common attribute of social justice. It is not interested in the whole truth. This is not surprising given that many today deny the existence of truth, and of course claim this to be true. Also, it is not necessary for society to agree with the outcomes or premises either one, but to condescend to it happening as a majority. You may state (maybe even correctly) that the German NAZI party in power did not have a majority supporting the murder of the Jews. But society did give the power over to Hitler and his socialist party to wield that power as they saw fit. They bought into the hype, which sounded good to them, and consented to the concentration of power. This brings us to the next point.

Social justice is usually about power and not justice. Fear is a strong motivator for change. If you can provide the fear and the change both, you can do almost anything, and people will support you. Montesquieu identified this as the necessary component for setting up a despotic government. Notice, it is fear of something, not necessarily fear of the ruler that is necessary for the despotism. Today fear of injustice is allowing people to perpetrate injustice. Fear of disease is allowing the government to consider violating privacy laws by requiring human tracking. Health departments everywhere are requiring tracking via interviews. There may or may not be good reasons for this – that is another discussion. But when that reason ceases to exist, will the tracking cease with it? Rarely has government ceased its actions once the need has disappeared. When social justice demands immediate action without due process, when social justice demands we break existing laws, when social justice ignores truth, when social justice ignores the laws in place and makes unfounded accusations against individuals or groups, it is at odds with God, and the very existence of a civil society. If you are reading this and say "NO, NO, NO that is not what social justice is about. I believe in social justice and you have perverted the meaning of the phrase," I will give you some resources to review and this one simple response. Your beliefs about social justice may be confined to a Christian view. After reading the three main components of social justice as espoused by the Catholic Church, I would find it hard to argue against the phrase. Likewise, most of the Methodist response would find resonance with me as well. So please look at the following presentation given by a self-proclaimed liberal, Jonathan Haidt, Ph.D. Professor of Business and Society Programs, NYU Stern School of Business (https://youtu.be/Gatn5ameRr8 with slides and other features available at https://heterodoxacademy.org/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice-2/).

WHY SHOULD THIS MATTER TO YOU AS A SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST?

What I have described is the necessary conditions for religious intolerance. It is necessary for society to fear something enough to turn to their leaders in mass and say, "if you know that forcing everyone to worship on Sunday at an approved church will remove the things that is causing our fear, do it!"

Can you support a social justice movement destroying innocent victims and their property? Can you support Marxist communist movements who by their very admission advocate killing in a violent revolt? Can you support the abrogation of justice in the name of social justice? Not and maintain that you also believe in Jesus and follow Him.