WebLog 3

Apply Miller's discussion of social justice  to a brief analysis of the two contrasting theories of social justice you developed for Blog2

Miller has some interesting ideas and facts about social justice. He makes good points that almost everybody has social justice, what differs is the amount of justice we have. One of hits theories is knowing how many people exist in a society and how to distribute the right and opportunities among the society.For example we all get compensated for doing work, its just a matter of how much, or that we all have the freedom of speech but it depends on how much and it what situations we use it in. Most, if not all of the points from Miller's discussion can be used and related to the two theories of social justice in the city of Omales (refer to WebLog 2).

In Omales, the residents that learned to accept and live with the idea of the locked up child take a lot of things for granted. While they do not think about this daily, or ever, they live in a happy, well structured, developed city. They enjoy the privileges that most residents do and they don't even think about it, they simply take it for granted, not thinking about the one child or others outside of the city that might not have a happy life or a roof over their head. In the city there is a consensus of how everyone should live and how everyone should be rewarded from their career and social input or existence. In my opinion everyone in that city understands the importance of the child and they live around it, it's essentially a social norm.

As for the contrasting view, the ones who see no social justice and choose to walk away from the city are not contributing to the problem and are somewhat socially just. Every resident who lives in the city is contributing the the problem and social injustice. The ones who walk away realize that the child is being mistreated and not given the chance to contribute or fit into the society, he's not even given a chance to! If the only circumstance and rationale for the child to be locked in the basement is that it keeps the rest of the city happy and stable because it was born defective or was neglected, that's corrupt. Some of the residents want to fix this corruption and set the child free however the rest of the population will not allow to. The rest of the population is keeping the justice away from that child because they rely on him and will simply not change their mentality. They are in a way adjusting the definition of social justice, because they rely on a "handicapped child", they overlook and not view it as a concern, resulting in all residents having social justice. The ones who walk away are in a way increasing social justice because they rather walk away and not find happiness for the rest of their life rather than seeing the child suffer.

In conclusion everyone has their own definition of social justice. Social justice does not only mean equal treatment or monetary possessions. To everyone's definition there are also circumstances and rationale behind it, each person has to explain why and how it is just in their opinion. There are both advantages and disadvantages to each person's definition because while it may support one point of view it may hurt the other. In the story social justice is measured by the happiness of the residents. While residents appear happy that one child is suffering but according to someone that may just be the utopian society they'd like to live in, as the residents of Omales do.