![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sW9RxbAyHLk/U4-NYqtQ7MI/AAAAAAAAAOc/uJDvSD8qTPY/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Good video - very clear. This is another area where the view from the UK is interesting. When I did my degrees in political theory back in the last millennium, "Justice" was something to do with due process in law, giving people what they were owed, and the correct treatment of individuals. It was never prefixed with the term "social", which is why we had to change our mental maps in order to deal with that big fat book by John Rawls when it hit our shores.
ReplyDeleteI think Rawls won. He changed the landscape on this one.
I agree that that's what justice is. Typically "social justice" has little to nothing to do with justice. It has to do with fairness and equality--neither of which are essentially normative notions. (Rawls spends about 2 paragraphs talking about what justice is/rights are.)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much to attribute to Rawls or Marx. Certainly the "Crit Theory" schools have a lot of Marxist influence, and that's where you find a lot of race/gender/sex/class "social justice" speak.