Talk:Social justice

Article lead

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)

WTF

The definition in the first paragraph, "complete economic equality of all members of society," is clearly POV. The word "complete" in there is overstating the equality proponents of Social Justice call for. Same goes for "wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone." The idea talked about in the third sentence didn't originate with Marx and suffers from the same problem as the previous sentences. And finally, the last two sentences in the opening paragraph of this article make a hash of marxism and entirely contradict each other. How does everyone recieve the "same amount of compensation" while receiving compensation "according to his need?" Also, the two cites in the first paragraph are to "The American Thinker" which is a quite conservative magazine and I doubt a reliable source. The content, word choices and unusual punctuation in the first paragraph is also incongruent with the rest of the article, leading me to believe this is vandalism or a newbie's sad attempt at contributing. I don't know anything about editing wikipedia pages and don't really care to learn, but I would encourage editors to do something about this silly opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.194.175 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Justice is a relatively new term for the unwashed masses, (of which I am a member), made popular since president Obama came onto the scene. There seems to be an effort made to conflate the concepts of rights, entitlements, redistribution and social safety net verses equal outcome. Gini coefficients, affirmative action, and quotas are not new concepts but the widespread belief that they axiomatically fall under a subset definition of justice is most certainly new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering Eugene Debs invoked the concept of social justice in his statement to the court upon being charged under the sedition act, I think it's fair to say the idea predates Obama by a number of years. Despite being an unwashed mass of one sort or another, you ought to educate yourself on the issue before embarrassing yourself further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.164.238 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that wasn't very nice of you to say. I never said nor implied that it was a new concept. The term is new to pop culture and the definition is an evasive mystery, wrapped in an enigma, with long tentacles. PS...I am too arrogant to be embarrassed.

Can anyone tell me what the first sentence of this article is actually trying to say? Hammersbach (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)