Since people are not equal, there should be no equalization. And let Lennox Lewis get his millions of dollars: You don't want to meet him in the ring, do you? But there are so many areas in life where equality is more beneficial. Public libraries should be free for everyone. Good roads should be accessible to everyone( but if the government doesn't have enough money, then there should be toll roads too ).Health care should be free for everyone, because the plague will come to the rich too. Education should be free for everyone, because geniuses are born not only from the rich. That is, what you call social justice is simply beneficial to the whole society. What is the use of a man if he has become rich beyond measure, but can not save the Volga. Or Don. And why does he need this wealth, if there is no Russian people? Throw punts in front of Jews and Caucasians?
People are not equal primarily in terms of the degree of egoism in their worldview, actions, judgments, and their contributions to the social product. Justice is the category of knowing the correspondence of something more selfish with something less selfish. Read more from nektosvostok on Yandex Zen. Social justice is an attempt to equalize the negative contributions of selfishness to the public “piggy bank”. And, if possible, reduce these contributions. Therefore, the degree of justice of social justice can be assessed by the contribution of selfishness that each member of society, with the help of “intelligence, will, diligence, etc.”, makes in order to increase the public good. The less “intelligence, will, and hard work” is used to achieve the public good, but the more it is used for personal enrichment and elevation, the more unfair social justice is. That is, for example, two people work approximately equally, but one is the head of Gazprom, and the other is a surgeon in the CRH. In terms of labor costs , intelligence, will, and hard work, they are conditionally equal. But in terms of the contribution of selfishness to the social product, they are at opposite ends. One works 90% for the benefit of society, the other 90% for the benefit of himself, his family, and his political group. This is the low degree of justice of social justice in a particular case. The public good shrinks and becomes more self-centered the less social justice becomes. The higher the degree of justice in “social justice”, the more opportunities and benefits a society has, and the less egoism there is in forming the “production – consumption” ratio. All the best.
And it does not work for a start, so the question of whether it is fair is not important. Humanity desperately resists the ideas of various leaders to remove caste, which exists in any society. Humanity is so organized that it always erects its social structure hierarchically. For this reason, money and many other things were invented. Ranks, ranks, and ranks always exist, even if you don't recognize them, it doesn't matter in principle. The desire for prestige as a psychological mechanism has existed since the Stone Age, when various influential families wore necklaces and beads made from those types of animals that are most difficult to kill and track down. And also from remote regions. The mechanism of prestige is tied to a person's sense of self and awareness of their potential. By and large, I don't see anything wrong with nm.
The initial disparity of people's abilities – this could be an argument against equality, if society was distributed in such a way that the most talented people were always at the top of the social ladder. In fact, institutionalized inequality inevitably degrades the personal qualities of both the ruling class and the ruling elite. This was also recognized by such elitists as Wilfredo Pareto (see “The law of universal circulation of elites”). And yes, there was a mistake in your question – it's not about justice, it's about equality, and it should have been ” Is equality fair?”. And if we consider only this argument against equality, we will have to admit that the course of historical events has already refuted it. The history of any society in the world includes examples of the malignant degeneration of elites, the decline of monarchical dynasties, and finally the death of some states and the rise of others.
Social justice equalizes people in opportunities, not in attributes, and removes barriers that prevent them from realizing their own characteristics. For example, free higher education offers the same opportunities for everyone, not just those who have money.
Since people are not equal, there should be no equalization. And let Lennox Lewis get his millions of dollars: You don't want to meet him in the ring, do you? But there are so many areas in life where equality is more beneficial. Public libraries should be free for everyone. Good roads should be accessible to everyone( but if the government doesn't have enough money, then there should be toll roads too ).Health care should be free for everyone, because the plague will come to the rich too. Education should be free for everyone, because geniuses are born not only from the rich. That is, what you call social justice is simply beneficial to the whole society. What is the use of a man if he has become rich beyond measure, but can not save the Volga. Or Don. And why does he need this wealth, if there is no Russian people? Throw punts in front of Jews and Caucasians?
People are not equal primarily in terms of the degree of egoism in their worldview, actions, judgments, and their contributions to the social product. Justice is the category of knowing the correspondence of something more selfish with something less selfish. Read more from nektosvostok on Yandex Zen. Social justice is an attempt to equalize the negative contributions of selfishness to the public “piggy bank”. And, if possible, reduce these contributions. Therefore, the degree of justice of social justice can be assessed by the contribution of selfishness that each member of society, with the help of “intelligence, will, diligence, etc.”, makes in order to increase the public good. The less “intelligence, will, and hard work” is used to achieve the public good, but the more it is used for personal enrichment and elevation, the more unfair social justice is. That is, for example, two people work approximately equally, but one is the head of Gazprom, and the other is a surgeon in the CRH. In terms of labor costs , intelligence, will, and hard work, they are conditionally equal. But in terms of the contribution of selfishness to the social product, they are at opposite ends. One works 90% for the benefit of society, the other 90% for the benefit of himself, his family, and his political group. This is the low degree of justice of social justice in a particular case. The public good shrinks and becomes more self-centered the less social justice becomes. The higher the degree of justice in “social justice”, the more opportunities and benefits a society has, and the less egoism there is in forming the “production – consumption” ratio. All the best.
And it does not work for a start, so the question of whether it is fair is not important. Humanity desperately resists the ideas of various leaders to remove caste, which exists in any society. Humanity is so organized that it always erects its social structure hierarchically. For this reason, money and many other things were invented. Ranks, ranks, and ranks always exist, even if you don't recognize them, it doesn't matter in principle. The desire for prestige as a psychological mechanism has existed since the Stone Age, when various influential families wore necklaces and beads made from those types of animals that are most difficult to kill and track down. And also from remote regions. The mechanism of prestige is tied to a person's sense of self and awareness of their potential. By and large, I don't see anything wrong with nm.
The initial disparity of people's abilities – this could be an argument against equality, if society was distributed in such a way that the most talented people were always at the top of the social ladder. In fact, institutionalized inequality inevitably degrades the personal qualities of both the ruling class and the ruling elite. This was also recognized by such elitists as Wilfredo Pareto (see “The law of universal circulation of elites”). And yes, there was a mistake in your question – it's not about justice, it's about equality, and it should have been ” Is equality fair?”. And if we consider only this argument against equality, we will have to admit that the course of historical events has already refuted it. The history of any society in the world includes examples of the malignant degeneration of elites, the decline of monarchical dynasties, and finally the death of some states and the rise of others.
Social justice equalizes people in opportunities, not in attributes, and removes barriers that prevent them from realizing their own characteristics. For example, free higher education offers the same opportunities for everyone, not just those who have money.