Individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice
The example next to nearly every modern definition of social justice describes individuality giving way to the struggle for social justice. The term struggle illustrates the constant, uphill battle. Even the word for tells us that this is something we want to strive towards. And justice, social justice is the infallible bastion of truth and equality upon which society is built. Even the social part of the term screams grassroots, progressive and group led. A rejection of traditional ‘right wing media’ in favour of source review, open discussion and power that stems from peoples own opinions, and not from a newspaper headline.
Social justice is defined as a term that describes the process of reaching an ideal situation regarding the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc, are to be treated equally and without prejudice. In essence, social justice describes a return to a baser time in human evolution, when the concerns of man were survival, prosperity and happiness. As mankind grew around the globe, the evolution of religious, racial, gender and class based differences diversified and influenced the societal values of each country and group. Social justice seeks not to abandon the growth of civilisation and ethics throughout the world, but to essentially iron out all of the negatives that came along with these advancements.
This means keeping our commerce, our careers and our skills, but taking out aspects that not only may favour one group or another and balancing any inequalities that creep in. The ideals are comparable with early socialist ideas that centre around an egalitarian distribution of wealth, working class solidarity and common ownership of land and resources. The similarities between social justice and socialist theory are clear; each based around a central theme of compassionate sharing and devolved responsibility and ownership. Socialism, and social justice are also closely tied to communist ideas. The difference being that where a socialist outlook would be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds”, a communist perspective would differ slightly; “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Socialism aims to still reward deeds, quite possibly via the state, whereas communism advocates for the replacement of all capitalist dictatorship, which in most cases would be the state government.
Both socialism and communism are seen by many as an ultimate goal. A romantic utopian dream in which those that may be described as the bourgeoisie, the ruling upper class are stripped of the unfair advantages that elevate them to that status, and the working man, the common man, the proletariat can rise up and be equal to every other man. The rich fall a long way, and the many more poor / middle class families get a small improvement in their quality of life. Such ideologies are often portrayed as great equalisers among all classes within a nation that would bring about a golden age of equality and fairness.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his…
Social justice ties itself to communist and socialist systems as a means to ground what is otherwise little more than good intentions. Social justice manifests itself in many ways to many people, and is invoked under a wide range of banners in a spectrum of circumstances. A way of living and an outlook on life no matter how positive or negative must have an end-goal, a dream situation. Governmental and societal systems provide a way to define the ideal world as a result of using social justice as a method for creating change.
Aristotle explored the idea of the common good, a precursor to social justice, and an idea based around how participation, citizenship and collective, working together in large social efforts, instead of isolated, automated groups will benefit society as a whole, the most. Ideas that are reflected in the idea of modern social justice. Machiavelli, a Renaissance era politician, historian and philosopher wrote a political treatise called The Prince that explores the idea of common good further, and highlights that it depends almost entirely upon the virtuousness of citizens. A challenge faced by social justice, socialist and communist ideologies in action is that a lot of their success or failure depends on this virtuousness. The entire of human evolution has centred around and benefited those who defend, promote and improve their own lives, their families lives and the clan / town / city / country / union they are a part of that defends and benefits them in turn. If social justice and its ideological endpoints are truly the final evolutionary stage of capitalism, a drastic change is required in the basic nature of man to one of unwavering compassion and selflessness.
Agathokakological: composed of both good and evil
Individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice. The very definition of social justice cries for the defeat of individuality. Individuality is that which makes each man woman and child different from the last. The actions, opinions and thoughts that they are free to develop, employ and promote. The dreams, goals and desires of an individual need to be subdued and put aside for the good of the collective in the name of social justice. But it is true individuality that represents all the good in a capitalist state, and can in theory still be kept whilst employing positive social change that encourages compassion and selflessness.
Individuality drives people forwards with scientific research, it compels artists, writers and philosophers. It obliges individuals to do their best, move forward, strive for success and progress society. Without individuality, without incentive, without reason, all of the factors that drive those who push science, engineering, politics, charity and all forms of human development become somewhat muted. The other side of the social justice coin see’s the purposeful loss of individuality in the name of group equality. All those who were driven forward will have to find the passion to still do so, as those who intentionally do not wish to contribute share in the rewards. Not every positive change in the world is motivated by money, power and prestige, but social justice does not aim to incentivize people to try.
Social justice, with the underlying principles of socialism and communism, often demonises those who are in any form successful, rich or powerful. It will, with great presumptuousness and to a fault, blame successes upon the factors that it uses to define itself. Ethnic origin, gender, race and religion are undoubtedly still factors upon which peoples prejudices play, but that does not mean that all measurable forms of success are actually injustices achieved purely as a result of these factors.
The definition and categorisation of what is a prejudice or a privilege is also at the behest of another one or few individuals with their own prejudices, opinions and somewhat ironically; individuality. The removal of individuality and the success of the common good for the many depends entirely upon the opinions of each individual. Individualism in this way is central to, and an unravelling truth with regards to social justice. Were there a unified, well tested and theoretically sound agreement of equality and fairness for all that didn’t hold society and progress back, then there would not be a problem or a costly side to social justice. The most alarming fault, the evil side of social justice that is mirrored in the failure of communist states, the collapse of coop banks and even the internal arguments between social justice advocates is individualism.
Individuality cannot successfully give way to social justice, when the measure of success is subject to the individual
The fallacy of social justice stems from the requirement for success being the removal of the means of measuring success. If a driven, compassionate individual must sacrifice so much for the good of those who have no desire or concern beyond their own means, yet no desire to act to improve their or others situations, then society stagnates into mediocrity. There is no reason that capitalism and the state cannot distribute social and health care where help is needed and provide equal opportunities to all without adhering to strict social justice boundaries that do little more than restrict the heights a free citizen can reach intellectually, socially, morally and spiritually, in the name of restricting them financially.
The idea of corporate responsibility, charity and equal opportunities for all are the most important progressive policies and changes of our modern times. Forcing the devolution of “the few” in the name of “the many” is little more than another system of control, just one that is far more oppressive than the others as division of property and wealth is controlled by the opinions of a ruling state. Social change should protect the freedoms of individuals while promoting positive changes in priorities and morals. That is what social change means; a real transformation of the opinions of selfish individuals to embrace the disadvantaged and expedite the evolution and improvements for all individuals. Doing so with an iron fist leads only to corruption, greed and the subjugation of free individuals to the state.
Social interaction is different for everyone, so each individuals idea of justice differs with respect to their social standing and situation. While it remains a somewhat clouded, fringe concept, the wider ideas of social justice advocates appear to correlate. But eventually, by definition, each individuals idea of what socially defines justice will begin to differ.
The exact aims of social justice are somewhat distorted, but predominantly morally positive. It is the common proposed method of achieving this change that remains untenable. People will be tempted to relinquish freedoms or individuality for extremist methods to seemingly positive ends. But social change takes time. Positive values are not instilled in people by force. Individuality and individual freedoms are not liberties that should not give way to social pressures or taken for granted. The free state that remains free and slowly chooses the morale and sustainable paths for social equality will prosper and last. Demanding one individuals idea of justice with respect to their own social standing and experiences, while stifling the freedoms of some of the most active members of and contributors to society is an affront to liberty.
Should individuality give way to social justice, liberty and freedom go away along with it.