6. Social Justice
- joshcjonesauthor
- Sep 23
- 3 min read
But what about social justice?
Well, this one tends to have various definitions of what people mean by this. For instance, one definition states it this way: “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges.”
I’m not quite sure what they mean by justice in distribution—if one sacrificed and earned it, then is it justice to take it away and give it to one who did not sacrifice or earn the same?

Anyway, another definition is, “the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities.”
This one seems straightforward; it even sounds familiar: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Then again, do we give everyone equal economic rights if we strip from those who have justly sacrificed to earn and give to those who unjustly demand? Does everyone get equal political rights if one political party forces another to involuntarily give up their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does everyone get equal social rights and opportunities if one group silences and cancels another’s social right and opportunity—i.e., canceling if my opportunities didn’t end in equal outcomes to your opportunities, or if I didn’t fully take advantage of my opportunities like you did, or canceling your freedom of speech if your definition of adequate and your standards don’t align with mine?
Is social justice good if it requires social injustice to your rights, access to your participation, and being unfair and biased toward you in order to enact my idea of social justice?
However, I think the best definition I’ve heard is that social justice is a concept where individuals fulfill “their societal roles and receive what was their due from society,” and “social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation.”

In other words, we are not individuals living and working in a free land where we get to choose for ourselves what is good, what is beneficial for us and our families, and what our role will be based on our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; instead, we are a collective who have an obligation to perform certain duties as assigned and receive what another (typically a governmental power) deems as our “fair share” as owed to us by society as a whole, contribution and accountability absent—this could include redistribution, reparation, entitlement, or extortion; right or wrong, all in the name of justice.
It’s stated that social justice and discrimination are not compatible; that is, until discrimination is required to enact the “fairness” that social justice demands.
But I think this is why social justice is also incompatible with biblical justice. Biblical justice has an absolute foundation, the Word of God. There is one way to righteousness, there is one way to God, there is the Word and law of God. You follow God, love God, and love your neighbor.
Social justice has a malleable and ever-evolving” foundation, society, and its current norms. There is an ever-changing, ever-increasing number of injustices, which are always changing based on the person defining their version of justice at that given time. As I say in the Episode Q&A PART II, “Injustice in the name of justice does not breed justice; it is injustice and only breeds more injustice.”
What I find interesting is that this topic could go on, and it would go much, much deeper. But there is only so much time. Besides, I said it before, my writings are not meant to be the ‘be all and end all’ of each topic. I only want to get people thinking here. As the tagline of my podcast, From My Standpoint, states, “Changing the perspective for a better understanding.” I want people to continue their own independent research and make their own decisions.
Otherwise, you will only know what you were told you should know, and you will only understand what they want you to understand.
Stay tuned! Soon we will discuss a recent example (well, recent when this was written anyway) of the definition of justice, “Correct application of law…”
Comments