The Scope of Social Justice

As previously stated in the blog regarding “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas,” two theories regarding the concept of social justice were formed. The first is that the principles of social justice such as solidarity and equality can be found in a utopian society. In other words, a utopian society is a just society nourishing the human dignity of all by promoting the common good. The other theory formulated is that suffering is inevitable. The existence of suffering is unavoidable thus blemishing the notion of a utopian society and deeming the concept as nothing more than a naïve figment of the imagination. As previously depicted in “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas,” there will always be that one person enduring pain and suffering, thus contributing to a continuous and contagious epidemic of suffering, furthermore contradicting the previously stated theory. The blog preceding touched upon this contradiction implementing the explanation that if suffering exists everywhere, hence a utopian society is completely unattainable to achieve.  Therefore, can social justice truly be incorporated in the reality of society if equality and the commitment to solidarity can never exist and instead suffering plagues our mere existence?

Miller begins his analysis of social justice by introducing basic questions regarding the concept of social justice itself. He brushes upon the theory concerning what social justice is and whether or not it is implemented in the world of today. Similar to the definition of social justice previously comprised in “Blog 2,” Miller states that social justice is often perceived as the equality of distribution of goods and services to society as a whole. He illustrates his points reflecting upon the issue of employment, government policies, and other issues that raise the question whether to provide all people with benefits essential to thrive.

Miller delves deeper into his analysis of the fundamentals of social justice by citing philosophers such as Aristotle and John Mill. One key phrase that Miller notes is “distributive justice.” He even furthers his explanation of the connection between distributive justice and social justice stating that the two are capable of being interchangeable. Distributive justice encompasses all facets of what an individual needs and what an individual receives based off of his or her particular needs. An individual has equal access to opportunities. What they do with that opportunity determines their success or failure. Access to the opportunity does not guarantee success. This principle is furthermore employed into issues surrounding jobs, education, and so on. One illustration of this standard is given in this example that a person with an advanced level of education will therefore be given a higher wage than a person with a minimal amount of schooling. Essentially, what one puts in is what one receives in return. Even in menial jobs such as garbage collecting, a person’s self-esteem can be realized if he takes pride in his profession, even though he may not make as much money as a CEO.

In “The Scope of Social Justice,” Miller alludes to the previous mentioned theory regarding whether a society of social justice is a utopian society. According to Miller, “ an agency with the power and directing capacity that the state is supposed to have is essential if a theory of justice is to be more than a utopian ideal.” Summarizing this point, this initial theory is simply refuted. In accordance to this selected statement, Miller says that utopian ideals and the principles of social justice must be disconnected in order to achieve true justice. Rather, social justice relies on the functioning of the society, often leading to the questioning of political authority. As long as political power is tainted, social justice, and moreover true distributive justice, while never be properly instilled. In reference to the theory addressing suffering, Miller focuses more on whether distribution is just rather than the sole well being of the person. Which as a result, leads me to hypothesize that justice can be widely interpreted. There is no one meaning to the highly debated phrase, “social justice.” Philosopher and philosopher has theorized, argued, and critiqued the concrete definition of social justice. All we know for sure is that social justice carries along a variety of inconsistences based off of what the power of society dictates. In conclusion, social justice is never static; rather, social justice is a dynamic concept that will never be put to rest and will send philosophers thinking in circles decade after decade and century upon century.