I think for any discussion about justice there has to be a part that includes 'rights'.

@tracycoyle I half agree. A right as far as I can see is really another way of saying people have a duty or obligation to others. This is often ignored..

To illustrate from the US Declaration of independance

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to life as an example - the universe could not give a damn whether you live or die. Step off a high cliff and see if the universe says "oh you have an unalienable Right to life so I will change things so you do not die".

What this clause, I believe, essentially does is put a duty/obligation on US citizens not to take other citizens lives.

If that is the case what need do we have to talk about "rights" .

Far too many people talk about their "rights" and ignore the obligations and duties they have as members of society

@Thasaidon I agree that rights carry obligations. But rights exist even during a solitary existence on an island. A right is an action necessary for the continued existence of the individual asserting them. I am, as you are, speaking of an inherent right. The obligation associated with a 'right to life' is to defend it. Rights are internal and asserted externally. So, while the Universe doesn't give a damn, our biology includes a 'will to live'. While Nature does not care if a singular individual survives, it gives the species the ability to procreate - another 'responsibility' built into the system.

Interesting that you brought up the DOI - because I point out as you basically did, 'THAT AMONG THESE...' suggests there are many such rights and that they were not necessarily given in any order of importance - we DO give such order. BTW, I am not a friend of Burke so I am not a fan of 'ordered liberty'.

Part of our obligations to society is to ensure that others have the liberty to assert their rights freely. That requires laws and systems to enforce them. What we call the Justice System. Which brings us back to my point - justice and rights are linked.

@tracycoyle I see where you are coming from and in effect, I think our differences are minimal and largely boil down to a matter of how we present our arguments. I fell to many speaking about "right' are really saying "you owe me..." and they deliberately/never consider "what I owe you".

I have also seen many people talk about rights when they mean a privilege that society has ceded them Just because society has given them a privilege does not mean it cannot be rescinded or amended. They also often have the attitude that they do not have to repay in any way for their privilege. In a word they are "Entitled".

That is why I prefer to frame my arguments in terms of obligations and duties.

Nice conversation I am enjoying this. It is making me logically lay out something that I have been mulling over for years.

@Thasaidon I became very political in 2005 and more active in 2008 when I helped to start the American Conservative Party. By 2010 I realized two things: I was using the term 'rights' a lot and I didn't have a good definition and I was making arguments about government spending with less support than I had in discussing rights. I really needed to have some substance to the assertions and positions I was espousing.

In 2010-2011 I spent a lot of time researching "right" to get a firm handle on a definition. I published my conclusions (An Assertion of Right) in 2011. In 2013 I published and had hand delivered to Congress a full and complete Federal Budget (Proposed FY2014 Federal Budget), both can be found on my website (tracycoyle.com).

I like conversations like this because it DOES force one to lay out thinking rather than to just toss out points.

Thank you too!

@tracycoyle Thank you for that. I will have a look at your website and see what you have to say about rights.

Personally I am not particularly political but dislike intensely Insectionallity, identitity politics and radical feminism, which why I am active on SLUG.

Our court system (the USA) is a court of equity. That means the relative status of the parties before the court can, and should be, taken into consideration. (Generally this does not apply to criminal, but lots of the foundation is there too.) We don't want fair - which tends to be synonymous with 'equal' for most people. Trust me, you do NOT want "fair".

Simply because the word social mean the general people and whatever is fashionable at that point in time which changes continuously... and hence are not justice but some feel good notion some may have.
Yesterday it was it was socially accepted to have black slaves... or see woman as inferior...
Tomorrow we decide all asians should be slaves and all straight people inferior.

Justice is base on outcome. You can't have social justice because you can't establish outcomes for society - only 1) opportunities and 2) a level field. The fact that outcomes vary with equal inputs is NOT a failure of the system but rather the reality that each human is unique and their outcomes reflect that.