Whoever thought life would be so surprising, so manipulative and yet so transcient. And yet mystery upon mystery, how do we escape social injustice and the seeming inadequacies of the law in our societies? This phenomenon has been plaguing us since the inception of time, however you want to see that, and it has yet to be answered. Had we not some of the greatest philosophers, had we not seen upheavels of societal values and systems, had we not been through the old and wise, and yet are we still debating this question.
How do we answer to generations?
Today, as I was sitting in statistics lesson, it struck me that sometimes as we emerge from a reformation of some sort, brought into enlightenment and reveling in our accomplishments we somehow, somewhere, lose our emergent doctrine and sustenance. Worst, we actually trample on it so we can pull ourselves out of the slump that we feel encompasses us. Yes, indeed, for a while now I had been thinking that since no one really has the apptitude to call the whole theory of the formation of world to perfection, so we are left to improve on their improvision. Take off from where they left off. Then we go in circles, that was what puzzuled me. I think it was what Marx may have found systematic in his theory. The rise of the middle class, he assumed, was an indefeatable circumstance in the course of history and would remain so. However, here I want to propose a reconciliation to his point of view and his observations. Namely, that we seem to be turning in circles never able to finally improve into a system that seeks to provide the needs of the lower classes. How could that be?
I must say one motivation besides statistics was the current American election in which subtlely through the economic circumstances the issue of social justice has emerged. Maybe once again.
So what has this to do with our beginnings? Social justice, per say, is a very big encompassing word. Social justice can be quantified and qualified into different sub groups. But much of what we seek and aspire for is really more of a valued based aspiration than a political and judicial problem. Obviously as individuals form into organisations, their philosophy and opinions permeate and penetrate and sometimes unconscious defile the system.
How does one separate and consign justice and value into spheres of their own? This, I will answer as practically, simply and briefly as I can. The emergent desire for man's social justice is really a sense of fairness beginning from his right to say and do as he pleases without violating others. A person desires to be his own servant and no one else. Unanswerable to no other unless he bounds himself therewith. That is, his freedom. This is consigned as justice. Value however can be qualified to use this freedom as he deem worthy. The person wants to put a value to his life and that is as he sees appropraite to it. Nobody can define that to him however society also makes its own judgement that does not, either, seeks for his approval and consent.
It may be generally said that while society, no matter how different its individuals, commonly hold standards and expectations, especially when they are dervied from people who hold in common this value and the neccesity of it, to begin with. When society steps in through political and judicial means to correct injustice in what it sees as the mistakes of individuals, it really loses its footing on the freedom of that individual.
Thus, I conclude by saying while the world may be extremly gray on such issue, politics or a judicial approach is not an answer to social injustice. The answer lies within the value system of the individual.
