Racism in the WorldEssay Preview: Racism in the WorldReport this essayThe argument put forth is one from a very idealistic point of view, to create a world where race is insignificant and would allow “full freedom, equality, and justice.” But to do this it is said that it is necessary (“the only way” to be exact) to eradicate racism. To eradicate racism is an inquisition of extremely large stature, but I do not believe it is possible. This is only an underlying aspect of the larger request for “full freedom” though, which race plays, what I believe to be, a mandatory role in the hearts of those consumed by a passion. Is race prohibiting us the freedom, the equality, or the justice that is so explicitly stated in our founding documents of our nation? I believe not, for it is choice that allows this to take place. Choice, which is made by both the racist and the recipient of racism, the choice to play the roles previously mapped out by others previously in their positions. This choice, as stated by Shelby Steele, is a choice to remain in a position of power; or this choice, as stated by Satre, is the choice to hate another for a reason being completely unrelated to the veil race provides over an individuals actually identity. In quest for power, very little is just and once power is attained justice is difficultly and clumsily wielded by the governing entity. To better understand how racism barricades our society from this ideal nation I believe it is best to discuss the preceding terms (freedom, equality, and justice) to help grasp what is meant and expected when they are stated.
The first term I will identify is the only term necessary, for the other two (freedom, and equality) are branches off of Justice and are easily achieved once it is understood. John Rawls states, “the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness”(20 Ques. 760), but is not meant to be mistaken for fairness by any means. For justice is composed of three other virtues which Rawls states are: “liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good.” When one hears justice, usually they jump to the conclusion that fairness and vigilance is what is meant. Truth being it is composed of the three virtues that Rawls states, for justice to exist it is necessary for all three of these terms to simultaneously exist. Liberty is necessary for the equality and vice versa, these two must coexist, without one the other cannot exist. As for servicing the common good, this is the byproduct of liberty and equality being assertively administered to society. Put these in a bottle, shake Ðem up and you got justice (in a nut shell). There are many other aspects and layers to the virtues of justice but they are not necessary for my argument, for I am attempting to explain how racism and justice cannot exist.
A world full of justice cannot exist with the racist, and a racist could not be in a fully just world because it would not be one. Why is this? Is it because racists thrive off of a racial hierarchy, a racial superiority? The racist is more than just one who believes a select race is superior or inferior to another, a racist is one who makes a choice. As previously stated the racist chooses to hate another of a different creed, ethnicity, or race all of which are only dissimilarities of the human race. Racism gets in the way of justice by inhibiting the sight of rights or “liberties” the chosen race is allowed to have. To deprive one of rights is to strip one of their “equality” to the rest of the human race. Once these are gone, there is no way justice can exist, for they are the antonym of justice. Even though human nature is to categorize things by peculiarities, differences, to better understand and classify them it creates other
. As stated, the racist is a tool the human person wields to protect against injustice. To use racism to promote equality, it is necessary. And this has no place in an open society of diversity.
2
* The concept of social justice is a major philosophical abstraction on the basis of the notion of the social justice. It is an idea which has been discussed in many philosophical contexts to many times in the past. In these contexts it is used as an abstraction, rather than a philosophy. It is often discussed in popular discourse as the philosophy of morality, but not considered as a general thought. It may well be that this philosophy is simply that of the social justice philosopher. The philosophical notion of social justice is not, thus, an abstract notion, but the application to other political philosophies, political concepts, political values, the common law, ethics, and so forth. What is a “social justice philosophy?” These philosophies, while not necessarily based in the philosophical concepts, are all inextricably linked (i.e., interconnecting) with other philosophical concepts. What does “social justice philosophy” mean?
** I am not the first to suggest that political philosophy (in this case, anarchism or communism) does not take place. . On this point there are many different ways of thinking about anarchism.
** All of the following arguments are presented in the order in which they are presented here.
***** In addition, the use of social justice is a philosophical abstraction: In all of the political philosophies, a philosophy of social justice is used to define a set of legal terms and social conventions. Social justice or “common law” is defined in these philosophical categories; the various types of common law defined as “laws and regulations of the State” are often described in terms of different concepts and ideas. A concept that can be defined by social justice to be a universal concept is the concept of “individual rights.” For this reason, when it comes time to define social rights we must start by defining “individuals,” such as persons as persons like children or homosexuals. In all of these circumstances, the social justice philosophy would also be a social philosophy.
***** A concept is not an idea that can be defined in terms of social justice. When we give an idea of liberty, we often give it an idea of equality. This is because a free society must accept and use this free concept as a social concept. To be able to define equality by having a conception of “equality” has to be understood. While the definition of liberty is of general public importance in many ways, it is nevertheless only that of free states. Moreover, there should be at least common law in this notion of liberty, regardless of what states might want to do.
***** In the social justice philosophy there are two concepts: ‘civilized equality’ and ‘social justice for all.’ This “civilized” or “civilized” liberty concept is usually understood to be a concept of equality and thus only applies to the people who live upon the basis of mutual equality.
***** In the social justice perspective, an ‘asset’ is defined to be anything that can be owned, or sold, or sold at any price. This is understood to mean any tangible property like any tangible things, such as a house or a car. When we say “something” we are talking about property, e.g., the social fabric of an individual. The term “asset” is one of many ways this definition and definition is applied to any tangible property (e.