“Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.”-Pope John Paul II
What is ‘social justice,’ and what does it mean to demand it?
Wrapped up in the idea of social justice is the notion of ‘fairness.’ Van Jones says that social justice means that the state creates total equality in all things: income, housing, dress, mobility (i.e. all manner of life outcomes. ) By this definition, justice is only achieved when everybody is precisely the same. Aside from the reality that it is impossible to achieve social justice, the attempt to achieve it requires conformity on a massive scale. If the state is creating a totality, that can only spell dictatorship, the death of liberty. Therefore, demanding this kind of social justice requires the state demand compliance.
When the state demands compliance, going so far as to confiscate property from one citizen to give to another, the state has assumed total control. That outcome is neither social nor just. Sensing this truth, and resistant to government intrusion, Americans correctly oppose tyrants who seek to impose their will using the power of the state. After all, that spirit of resistance is what inspired the colonists to fight a revolution to throw off the tyranny of King George.
Of course, if a definition of ‘fairness’ undergirds the promotion of social justice, someone will have to define ‘fairness’; and that someone must be the state insofar as the state is the chief advocate of social justice. Consequently, the definition of fairness will always be controlled by those who fight for power. Only the powerful wind up defining ‘fairness’ and carrying through the ‘justice’ agenda, which always means that the powerless get trampled.
Hence, what Pope John Paul II said is entirely true. We might even take it a step further, asserting that any promotion of a social justice agenda predicated upon human definitions of fairness will always require violence, simply because huge groups of people will object to the prevailing definition of fairness. Those people must be subjugated or eliminated.
Despite these truths and these realities, the Left continues pushing the notion of ‘social justice,’ whenever convenient, doing so with violence in various forms. There is always an aggrieved minority claiming unfair treatment, demanding justice, which usually results in more destruction than any supposed remedy might deliver.
The argument in support of killing babies in the womb promotes social justice with violence. You see, it is unfair, even cruel, to expect a woman to bring her baby to term. Having a baby is now seen largely as punishment. Babies are inconvenient, obstacles to career development, a hindrance to full sexual enjoyment, and mere blobs of tissue. Doing them violence is lawful, and anyone who calls it murder deserves violence. Fairness does not extend to the fetus. Social justice demands that women be liberated from their biology. Any contrary point of view is called unfair to women, an injustice to them, and anti-social in the extreme. In this case, violence cuts against babies, against men, against marriage, and against women in the end; for they are victims of the carnage as well.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.