"Social Justice" is an interesting couplet of words. A term originally without a dictionary definition, it exists far more by what it implies rather than what any one person or group categorizes it as.
Of the definitions available by Merriam Webster, the most appropriate would seem to be
>"Social:" of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society.
"Justice" has similarly fitting options:
>"Justice:
>a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
>c (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal.
A common theme of the second definition is that it is related to the management and application of what is just.
>Just:
>c : conforming to a standard of correctness.
>a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
So in aggregate we have Social Justice definable as:
>Conformity to the principle or ideal of what is morally upright or good, as applied to the interaction of individuals and human society.
Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? "When people interact, they should do so in moral and good ways, or with an eye to create moral and good outcomes."
The fly in the ointment is an implicit but unanswered question. That question is, briefly: Who is deciding what is morally upright and good in this context?
Leaving that for a moment, I'd like to addresPost too long. Click here to view the full text.