[snip]
>There is a problem here that far to many people fail to understand.
>Ethically, we must consider the concerns and fates of our fellows if we are
>to reduce if not eliminate social inequities. The issue as I see it is to
>transcend our selfishness for the common good.
>
>Can we focus on greater involvement by increasing direct participation in
>government and eliminating the "them vs. us" syndrome that our so-called
>representative government is degenerating into?
>
Hmm, I don't seem to have made myself clear. I have no objection to
your whipping us up into moral action; what I object to is the
nonsensicality of the concept "social justice" to describe what you are
aiming for as a result of all this social action.
The result you are after - that we all get together and do something
about our less fortunate fellows - that's fine. However, to describe
this as bringing about a form of "justice" seems to me to be daft: since
the distribution of goods is largely accidental, ie. nobody is to
*blame* for it, how can it be a matter of *justice*?
In fact doing so obscures the morality of helping. Instead of an act of
charity, we are to call our giving of aid an act of *justice*?
Puh-leez.
Guru George