Can someone explain what that term "social justice" means? Be prepared for a lot of "why" questions when you answer.
Hmm, too many terms. It should be much simpler, no?
"Justice for every citizen." And what is this justice? How many kilos for every citizen?
"Progressiveness"? Is destroying the planet via chemical farming progressive or regressive? Why?
"Justice for every citizen." And what is this justice? How many kilos for every citizen?
"Progressiveness"? Is destroying the planet via chemical farming progressive or regressive? Why?
Lack of discrimination on class? But discrimination is the very essence of class. Without that there would be no class. You want a "classless society"? Has this ever happened in any country in any time? And why?
Why would one treat everyone equally? Those who have not studied should be treated equally to be rocket scientists or doctors? Rich and poor get treated equally in a 5-star?
Chemical farming is "regressive", why? It was progressive just a few years ago.
Chemical farming is "regressive", why? It was progressive just a few years ago.
Equality before law? But the law itself is unequal. And access to it is unequal. Who can afford to go to court? How many can access the Supreme Court? Inequality is part of the "system of justice." And if inequality is part of the justice, what is justice?
This means that inequality and oppression is built in to the character and institutions of the modern state. This cannot be changed, its part of its nature. Then who are we appealing to for "social justice"?
Why just limit to that? How about equality irrespective of talent, intelligence, physical strength, training? How would that work in sports, for instance?
When I ask provocative questions to interrogate modern dogmas (which are just like religion), don't assume I am arguing for the contrary i.e. *against* "social justice" or "equality" etc. I interrogate to understand, not as a position for or against.
Treated equally by who? And can one really treat people equally irrespective of their differences and uniqueness?
All these terms "social justice", "equality" have also been defined and pushed by men—mostly dead White European males. You have a point?
Let's posit an alternative. Instead of "equality" let us say our goal is to maximize human potential, or to maximize talent of a society. So one could do a broad talent search to locate this talent, and focus on nurturing it, wherever it exists.
My point is there are principles other than "equality" that can be brought to bear. Yes one's vrittis and swadharma is important. How would a society based on developing human potential in consonance with swadharma differ from one based on "equality."
People’s efforts and competence vary. This will naturally lead to an unequal society. Inequality is natural, found everywhere in nature.
Thus, equality is an unnatural dogma. Where does it come from?
Thus, equality is an unnatural dogma. Where does it come from?
