Is Social Justice Just? (2)

In terms of ideology, “social justice” can be understood as a vision or worldview that frames human society not simply as a collection of individuals pursuing private interests, but as an interconnected community bound by mutual rights and obligations. Under this ideological lens, social justice emphasises that certain structural inequalities—whether stemming from class, race, gender, nationality or other axes of difference—are not simply accidental but are morally significant and warrant reform. According to Thomas Patrick Burke in his "The Concept of Justice: Is Social Justice Just?", the ideological root of this conception dates to early Catholic social teaching and nineteenth-century political theory, wherein the notion of “to each according to his need, from each according to his capacity” began to inform social critique.

Scott David Allen, in his book Why Social Justice Is Not Biblical Justice (2020, Credo House Publishers), firmly argues that what is commonly referred to today as “social justice” bears little resemblance to the justice described in the Bible. His central question — whether social justice is truly biblical justice — is answered with an unambiguous “no.” For Allen, modern social justice is not a continuation of biblical ethics but rather a deviation shaped by secular ideologies, particularly those stemming from postmodernism and critical theory.

According to Allen, biblical justice flows directly from God’s unchanging moral law. It is rooted in righteousness, truth, and personal responsibility — the idea that every individual stands accountable before God. Social justice, in contrast, is presented as an ideology that shifts the focus from individual sin and moral reform to structural oppression and collective guilt. While the Bible teaches that human beings are equal before God and calls believers to defend the poor and the weak, Allen contends that contemporary social justice replaces this divine standard with a human agenda that prioritises equality of outcome over righteousness.

He further suggests that the language of victimhood and oppression, which dominates much of modern discourse on justice, leads people to misidentify the true source of evil. Instead of recognising the human heart as the origin of injustice — as Scripture insists — social justice theories externalise sin into systems, groups, and institutions. Allen believes that this misunderstanding risks creating new forms of division and resentment, rather than genuine reconciliation rooted in love and repentance.

However, Allen does not dismiss the pursuit of justice itself. Rather, he urges Christians to rediscover and practise biblical justice: to act with mercy, humility, and fairness; to oppose oppression not through ideological warfare but through moral renewal inspired by faith in Christ. He emphasises that the Church must not abandon the public square but engage it with wisdom — championing a justice that restores rather than destroys. For him, the Gospel remains the ultimate foundation of any meaningful vision of justice.

Ultimately, Allen warns that the seductive appeal of social justice ideology can lure believers away from biblical truth, yet he also calls for renewed compassion and courage to confront real injustice through a distinctly Christian worldview. His work invites readers to ask not only what justice looks like, but whose justice they are serving—that of the world or that of the Word.

Thomas Sowell identifies and critiques several fallacies within the realm of social justice in his work Social Justice Fallacies (2023). These fallacies, according to Sowell, are prevalent misconceptions or flawed arguments that underpin many social justice policies and ideologies. He argues that these fallacies often lead to unintended negative consequences and hinder genuine progress towards equality and fairness.

One of the primary fallacies Sowell addresses is the "Equal Chances" fallacy. This fallacy posits that if everyone is given equal opportunities, they will achieve equal outcomes. Sowell contends that this perspective overlooks the complex interplay of individual choices, cultural factors, and historical contexts that influence outcomes. He suggests that disparities in outcomes are not solely the result of unequal opportunities but are also shaped by these multifaceted factors.

Another significant fallacy is the "Knowledge" fallacy, which assumes that elites or policymakers possess the requisite knowledge to design and implement policies that will lead to social justice. Sowell critiques this assumption by highlighting the limitations of centralised planning and the importance of local knowledge and individual decision-making in achieving effective and just outcomes.

Sowell also discusses the "Chess Pieces" fallacy, which treats individuals as mere instruments to be moved around in pursuit of a desired outcome. This fallacy, he argues, disregards the autonomy and agency of individuals, treating them as tools to achieve a broader social goal rather than as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, Sowell examines the "Racial" fallacy, which attributes disparities in outcomes solely to racial discrimination. While acknowledging that racism exists, he argues that focusing exclusively on race as the cause of disparities neglects other significant factors, such as family structure, culture, and individual choices, that contribute to these differences.

Lastly, the "Affirmative Action" fallacy is scrutinised, where policies intended to rectify past injustices by providing preferential treatment to certain groups may, according to Sowell, lead to mismatches in qualifications and expectations, ultimately disadvantaging those they aim to help.

In summary, Thomas Sowell's Social Justice Fallacies delves into these and other misconceptions, urging a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to addressing issues of social justice. He advocates for policies that consider the complexity of human behaviour and societal structures, rather than relying on oversimplified and often misguided assumptions.

Sowell offers several recommendations to avoid the pitfalls of social justice fallacies. He advocates for policies grounded in empirical evidence, recognising the complexity of human behaviour and societal structures. Sowell emphasises the importance of considering the unintended consequences of policies and avoiding simplistic solutions to complex issues. He also warns against the dangers of treating individuals as mere instruments to achieve desired outcomes, advocating for policies that respect individual autonomy and agency. Furthermore, Sowell suggests that policymakers should be cautious of assuming they possess the requisite knowledge to design institutions that will lead to social justice, highlighting the limitations of centralised planning and the importance of local knowledge and individual decision-making.

In her 2014 work Reconstructing Social Justice, Lauretta Conklin Frederking challenges the conventional understanding of social justice, which has often been reduced to mere slogans or political catchphrases. She argues that the term has become increasingly hollow, lacking a clear and meaningful definition. To address this, Frederking proposes a new framework that repositions social justice as a distinct intellectual and practical domain, separate from political, legal, and economic spheres.

Central to Frederking's thesis is the idea that social justice should be viewed not as a set of policy outcomes or ideological positions, but as a process of social accountability. This process requires honest and transparent engagement, acknowledging that disagreement and controversy are inevitable. However, such engagement is essential, as it reaffirms our interconnectedness and propels us forward collectively.

Drawing from a rich array of classroom experiences, including research on mosque controversies following the September 11 attacks, and global examples like truth and reconciliation commissions, Frederking illustrates how social justice operates on both micro and macro levels. She examines its role in various societal domains, including democracy, capitalism, technology, and religion, highlighting how each can influence and be influenced by social justice processes. Frederking argues that social justice operates across multiple levels of society, from the micro level of individual and community interactions to the macro level of national and global structures. She suggests that at the micro level, social justice emerges through honest dialogue, transparency, and shared accountability in everyday social relationships. This means that even small acts of fairness, inclusion, and acknowledgement of others’ perspectives can foster trust and repair social bonds within communities.

At the macro level, Frederking sees social justice as a guiding principle for institutions, policies, and societal norms. By embedding principles of accountability, transparency, and participatory engagement into governance, economic systems, and technological development, societies can reduce structural inequalities and promote more equitable outcomes. In this sense, social justice functions like a healing process, addressing grievances, encouraging reconciliation, and rebuilding trust among groups divided by political conflicts, economic disparities, or technological disruptions.

Frederking emphasises that the effectiveness of social justice in “healing” fractured societies relies on the active participation of all members of society. It is not imposed top-down but cultivated through continuous dialogue and collaborative problem-solving. By focusing on processes rather than rigid outcomes, social justice can restore social cohesion and create conditions for more sustainable peace and cooperation.

Ultimately, Frederking's work offers a compelling argument for reconceptualising social justice. By focusing on the process of engagement and accountability, rather than fixed outcomes, she provides a framework that is both intellectually rigorous and practically applicable, aiming to restore depth and relevance to the concept of social justice in contemporary discourse.

Honouring Social Justice, edited by Margaret E. Beare, is a tribute to the late Dianne Martin, a distinguished scholar, lawyer, and social activist, the collection comprises essays by leading legal scholars, criminologists, and sociologists, addressing various contemporary social justice issues. These essays delve into topics such as the targeting of marginalised groups, wrongful convictions, gender-based bias in law, government accountability, and inequalities in the application of the law to ethnic and socio-economic groups. The contributors aim to provide an illuminating introduction to the background of important social causes and describe dedicated examples of how to effectively champion calls for social justice.

The overarching conclusion of the book is that while progress has been made in addressing social justice issues, significant challenges remain. The contributors emphasise the need for continued efforts to reform the criminal justice system, ensuring it is equitable and just for all individuals, regardless of their background or identity. The essays collectively advocate for a more inclusive and accountable legal system that actively works to dismantle systemic biases and inequalities.

The contributors examine the intersections of innocence, marginalisation, and social justice within the legal system. The essays explore various facets of these issues, including wrongful convictions, the experiences of marginalised groups, and the broader implications for justice. The authors collectively argue that the legal system often fails to adequately protect the rights of innocent individuals and those from marginalised communities. They highlight systemic biases and propose reforms to address these injustices.

The contributors argue that the legal system often fails to protect the rights of innocent individuals and those from marginalised communities due to several interconnected factors. First, systemic biases are deeply embedded in legal institutions, affecting how laws are enforced and how justice is administered. These biases can be based on race, gender, socio-economic status, or other markers of marginality, leading to disproportionate targeting and harsher treatment of vulnerable groups. Second, the legal system tends to prioritise procedural formalities over substantive justice, which can result in the overlooking of individual circumstances or injustices that disproportionately affect marginalised populations. Third, there is a lack of accountability and transparency in decision-making processes, which allows discriminatory practices and wrongful convictions to persist. The contributors emphasise that meaningful reform requires both structural change within legal institutions and a cultural shift in how society understands and applies justice.

The contributors highlight several forms of systemic bias that pervade the legal system. Among the most emphasised are racial and ethnic bias, where individuals from minority communities are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement and are more likely to face harsher sentences. Gender bias is also noted, particularly in cases involving sexual assault, domestic violence, and family law, where societal stereotypes can influence judicial outcomes. Socio-economic bias is another critical factor: people from lower-income backgrounds often lack access to adequate legal representation, which significantly diminishes their chances of fair treatment in court. Additionally, the book underscores how these biases intersect, creating compounded disadvantages for individuals who belong to multiple marginalised groups.

To address these inequities, the contributors propose a multi-layered approach to reform. Structural reforms include implementing rigorous accountability measures for law enforcement and the judiciary, mandatory bias training, and more transparent procedures for reviewing convictions, especially in cases of potential wrongful convictions. They also advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to legal resources, such as public defence funding and community legal support. On a broader cultural level, the book calls for ongoing public education and advocacy to challenge societal stereotypes and foster a more inclusive conception of justice. These combined efforts aim not only to correct individual cases of injustice but also to transform the system to be fairer and more responsive to all members of society.

[Part 3]
[Part 1]

Bahasa