Comments on: What is social justice? http://www.medrants.com/archives/3434 Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Gibson http://www.medrants.com/archives/3434/comment-page-1#comment-515803 Michael Gibson Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:48:14 +0000 http://www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/3434#comment-515803 A generally accepted definition of "social justice" does not include equality of outcome but, instead focuses on the minimum level of resources needed to preserve individual human dignity. For example, if it is accepted that every human being is entitled to shelter and that human beings who do not have shelter lack essential dignity, then the argument turns to the resources needed by individual human beings to attain the minimum level of shelter in their particular society. Thus, a demand that someone who is not in paid employment to receive shelter at a luxury hotel would be regarded as exceeding the requirements of social justice. Similarly provision of shelter in the form of a cardboard box would be regarded as falling below the requirement of social justice. Once an acceptable minimum level of entitlement of a essential good is established, the focus then turns to the proper funding of the entitlement. If a person can obtain their own shelter above the acceptable minimum by the use of their own resources, then society need not concern itself with that person's need for shelter because it has been met. If a person cannot obtain shelter at the acceptable minimum by the use of their own resources, then everyone else is collectively responsible for helping the person obtain shelter at the acceptable minimum level. The levels and mechanisms of assistance may vary among different communities, but I think focusing on human dignity as the primary value is the key to resolving these types of problems. A generally accepted definition of “social justice” does not include equality of outcome but, instead focuses on the minimum level of resources needed to preserve individual human dignity. For example, if it is accepted that every human being is entitled to shelter and that human beings who do not have shelter lack essential dignity, then the argument turns to the resources needed by individual human beings to attain the minimum level of shelter in their particular society. Thus, a demand that someone who is not in paid employment to receive shelter at a luxury hotel would be regarded as exceeding the requirements of social justice. Similarly provision of shelter in the form of a cardboard box would be regarded as falling below the requirement of social justice. Once an acceptable minimum level of entitlement of a essential good is established, the focus then turns to the proper funding of the entitlement. If a person can obtain their own shelter above the acceptable minimum by the use of their own resources, then society need not concern itself with that person’s need for shelter because it has been met. If a person cannot obtain shelter at the acceptable minimum by the use of their own resources, then everyone else is collectively responsible for helping the person obtain shelter at the acceptable minimum level. The levels and mechanisms of assistance may vary among different communities, but I think focusing on human dignity as the primary value is the key to resolving these types of problems.

]]> By: Health Care BS - SOCIAL JUSTICE? TRY THE FREE MARKET http://www.medrants.com/archives/3434/comment-page-1#comment-515317 Health Care BS - SOCIAL JUSTICE? TRY THE FREE MARKET Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:25:43 +0000 http://www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/3434#comment-515317 [...] interesting commentary on social justice from Robert Center and James Gaulte. Nurse K has some additional [...] [...] interesting commentary on social justice from Robert Center and James Gaulte. Nurse K has some additional [...]

]]> By: Richard Fogoros http://www.medrants.com/archives/3434/comment-page-1#comment-515299 Richard Fogoros Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:29:10 +0000 http://www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/3434#comment-515299 DB, Thanks for this post. The definition of "social justice," as you point out, is indeed the crux of the matter. I have addressed this elsewhere, but to me, defining social justice boils down to this: Does social justice mean attempting to achieve equal opportunity, or equal outcomes? America's founders answered this question explicitly by calling for equal opportunity under the law. The founders would have been aghast at the notion that the goal of society should be equal outcomes. This, simply, is because achieving equal outcomes necessarily requires a supreme central authority to forcibly redistribute wealth (and any other commodity required for the homogenation of outcomes). Avoiding an all-powerful central authority is explicitly what the founders were fighting to do. The wisdom of the founders ought to be plain to anyone examining the kind of "social justice" finally achieved by the great totalitarian experiments of the 20th century. Equating "social justice" with equal outcomes has always been, and will always be, a call for just such an all-powerful central authority. Those who advocate for this kind of social justice without owning up to what that implies are either extraordinarily misinformed (i.e., the product of what now passes for American public education), or extraordinarily devious. DrRich DB,

Thanks for this post. The definition of “social justice,” as you point out, is indeed the crux of the matter. I have addressed this elsewhere, but to me, defining social justice boils down to this: Does social justice mean attempting to achieve equal opportunity, or equal outcomes?

America’s founders answered this question explicitly by calling for equal opportunity under the law. The founders would have been aghast at the notion that the goal of society should be equal outcomes.

This, simply, is because achieving equal outcomes necessarily requires a supreme central authority to forcibly redistribute wealth (and any other commodity required for the homogenation of outcomes). Avoiding an all-powerful central authority is explicitly what the founders were fighting to do. The wisdom of the founders ought to be plain to anyone examining the kind of “social justice” finally achieved by the great totalitarian experiments of the 20th century.

Equating “social justice” with equal outcomes has always been, and will always be, a call for just such an all-powerful central authority. Those who advocate for this kind of social justice without owning up to what that implies are either extraordinarily misinformed (i.e., the product of what now passes for American public education), or extraordinarily devious.

DrRich

]]> By: Graham http://www.medrants.com/archives/3434/comment-page-1#comment-515290 Graham Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:44:17 +0000 http://www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/3434#comment-515290 My concern is again that we punish the lower-class producers when we punish the non-producers. The non-producers cause a lot of headaches and make us all very angry, and are very visible, but they're the loud but very small minority. Most of us don't see the producers, or our cognitive biases make us remember the non-producers much easier than the producers. My concern is again that we punish the lower-class producers when we punish the non-producers. The non-producers cause a lot of headaches and make us all very angry, and are very visible, but they’re the loud but very small minority. Most of us don’t see the producers, or our cognitive biases make us remember the non-producers much easier than the producers.

]]>