3. The difference between justice and rights must be borne in mind. Many will argue, as I do, that no one is entitled to a job: for example, no employer should be legally obliged to hire an employee they don`t need, or even hire an employee they don`t want on their payroll; If it is his own money that he spends (and risks), he has the right to hire whomever he wants. If he is racist and refuses to hire blacks or Mexicans, he may suffer economically from his prejudices: if he does not take advantage of many of his most qualified candidates, he himself will be the loser, especially if his non-racist competitor employs them; But it is a punishment he takes for himself by being racist. Many employers may have racist feelings, but if they want to stay in business, they won`t let those feelings get in their way. With the four principles we discussed above, social justice is possible. Where is social justice needed? Depending on the nation, some social justice issues are more pressing than others. Overall, most companies struggle with similar companies. Here are some examples: 5.
More importantly, justice is individualistic: since individuals` deserts are different from each other, their rewards and punishments should also differ from each other. This is why Aristotle said that justice is about “treating equals equally and unequal unequals.” If five people have committed no crime and five others have committed crimes punishable by one year in prison, it would be unfair to calculate all their records and sentence them to imprisonment every ten to six months. The innocent do not deserve punishment, and the guilty do. Justice is not a question of average; It is a question of assigning each individual his own desert. Such a law allows same-sex couples to be legally married, but not necessarily religiously. The separation of church and state prohibits state legislators from dictating whether or not a religious institution recognizes marriage or performs a ceremony. This separation is necessary in a country that has no religious affiliation, but it means that LGBT+ religious people depend on social justice to help them gain this right. Fortunately, however, this means that Keshet and similar organizations can continue to work on inclusion in synagogues across the country to make it a reality. 3.
Sometimes a law itself is unjust; If all drivers who parked too long at a parking meter were sentenced to jail, such a law, no matter how impartial, would be unfair because the penalty is harsher than the crime deserves. But more often than not, it is the administration of justice that is unjust; A man is sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery and another man guilty of the same crime receives a suspended sentence or convinces the jury that he has a mental illness and thus receives a verdict for mental illness that can release him in sixty days. This maladministration in the administration of justice is often described as comparative injustice. Many prisoners who take full responsibility for their actions and do not claim that their sentence is undeserved still complain of a comparative injustice: why were they convicted when someone was released just as guilty? Their punishment may not have been unfair per se, but the injustice lies in the ease or absence of the other person`s punishment compared to theirs. There are many cases where previous discrimination can only be corrected by committing another act of unjust discrimination in the present, thereby perpetuating the discrimination instead of eliminating it. If a past act of injustice can be corrected by creating another in the present, the remedy may be worse than the disease; Perhaps, rather than committing a second injustice to correct the first, it would be better to simply say no to such discrimination in the future. In this case, we hire the one who is most qualified for the job, regardless of race. And if a past act of unjust discrimination is not corrected by this procedure (only for that period), at least no future discrimination should occur as a result. [4] But what exactly does this term mean? If justice is treatment in accordance with the desert and deserts are unequal, then justice demands that treatment be equally unequal.
If everyone received the same salary, regardless of their efforts or performance, we would have a society in which almost no one would work; In the end, there would be nothing left to distribute, and hunger would afflict the country. The ideal of justice as absolute egalitarianism – everyone receives the same thing, no matter who does what or how much, or if they do nothing at all – is refuted by the most elementary facts of reality. It is not the idea of forced redistribution that deters egalitarians – they have no objection to this – but only the fact that once the goose is killed, it can no longer lay eggs. The fact that it does not employ certain persons does not therefore constitute an infringement of the rights of those it does not employ; No one is entitled to employment for which another person must pay. But if he refuses to hire the most qualified candidates, he commits an injustice because he does not treat others according to their deserts. The right to treat them in this way is not incompatible with treating them unfairly. Whether the law should prohibit such treatment depends on one`s conception of the law: whether, as the Founding Fathers did (roughly), one believes that the law should only prohibit violations of rights, or whether (as with more recent views) the law should also intervene when there are cases of injustice. So yes, this is absolutely a time to celebrate, but there are still massive groups of people who need a boost for social justice now more than ever. If someone is unemployed because their skills are no longer in demand, they need to start learning another one. But where is the injustice in that? Who is the perpetrator of the alleged injustice? The buggy manufacturer that no longer has a demand for buggies? Wouldn`t it be unfair for the buggy manufacturer to force him to keep a worker he doesn`t need when most customers buy cars instead of buggies? It will now be obvious that the demands of “social justice” are incompatible with those of individual justice; To the extent that the first condition is met, the second must be sacrificed. If the government takes money from Peter`s wallet and puts it in Paul`s wallet, it may have achieved more equality, but not more justice. It is impossible for individuals to receive a fair wage in a free market and then be forced to part with part of it, because they then receive less than a fair wage.
Individuals interact with each other, in families and larger societies. Sometimes they behave illegally towards others; And one type of wrongdoing is called injustice. But what does that mean? What exactly does it mean when an action is right or wrong? Members of the LGBTQ+ community face high levels of violence and discrimination around the world. Among other challenges, it affects their ability to find work, housing, health care and safety. It`s more dangerous in some states than others, but even in the most advanced countries, social justice is not well established for the LGBTQ+ community.
