The only truth about these two concepts is that they are both a sham.
In order to subscribe to these ideas, you must subscribe to a certain ideology. While in the criminal justice system, we might not all always be happy with the results, it is constantly being honed and changed in the interest of fairness. The concept of justice is one born of human nature; there is something within us that doesn’t accept murder, rape and robbery. Criminal justice is based around the idea of individual responsibility for one’s actions.
Social justice, on the other hand, completely negates the idea of individual responsibility. You are guilty just for being a part of a “class” of people, usually wealthy and white, and you are supposed to “pay up”. Some advocates of :social justice” even insist that whites are the only ones capable of being racists; others carry it so far as to say that whites are incapable of not being racists. (What a racist idea cloaked in such choked an circular logic as to not be recognized as being “anti”-racist.) Environmental justice is based on the idea that man is simply destructive and not a part of the environment, but an inherent enemy of the earth. It is at best, naive, at worst, an attempt to mainstream some ancient Pagan ideas. Both ideas are adopted and championed by people who basically don’t like themselves. They are people who feel like they’re not good enough, that they don’t deserve the good things in life that they’ve achieved and their burden will never be ameliorated; it’s projected mental illness (personality disorder, methinks) on an enormous scale, and it’s frightening how fast the idea catches on. I think it’s noteworthy though, that it often catches on with young people who are trying to do the “right” thing and be empathetic to the world around them, and are probably not so sure of themselves. Those who cling to these ideas in an older age are confused and immature, even though they might be intellectually gifted. Lots of people in academia fit this bill.
十二月 7th, 2009 at 8:38 下午
The only truth about these two concepts is that they are both a sham.
In order to subscribe to these ideas, you must subscribe to a certain ideology. While in the criminal justice system, we might not all always be happy with the results, it is constantly being honed and changed in the interest of fairness. The concept of justice is one born of human nature; there is something within us that doesn’t accept murder, rape and robbery. Criminal justice is based around the idea of individual responsibility for one’s actions.
Social justice, on the other hand, completely negates the idea of individual responsibility. You are guilty just for being a part of a “class” of people, usually wealthy and white, and you are supposed to “pay up”. Some advocates of :social justice” even insist that whites are the only ones capable of being racists; others carry it so far as to say that whites are incapable of not being racists. (What a racist idea cloaked in such choked an circular logic as to not be recognized as being “anti”-racist.) Environmental justice is based on the idea that man is simply destructive and not a part of the environment, but an inherent enemy of the earth. It is at best, naive, at worst, an attempt to mainstream some ancient Pagan ideas. Both ideas are adopted and championed by people who basically don’t like themselves. They are people who feel like they’re not good enough, that they don’t deserve the good things in life that they’ve achieved and their burden will never be ameliorated; it’s projected mental illness (personality disorder, methinks) on an enormous scale, and it’s frightening how fast the idea catches on. I think it’s noteworthy though, that it often catches on with young people who are trying to do the “right” thing and be empathetic to the world around them, and are probably not so sure of themselves. Those who cling to these ideas in an older age are confused and immature, even though they might be intellectually gifted. Lots of people in academia fit this bill.