"The Life of making is a long Sunday. They live in nice houses, they wear petite clothes, they have plump faces and speak a peculiar language, and the people lies in front of them as fertilizer on the field" Georg Büchner.
I think it's a little provocative when I say our world is unfair. The first exploits the third world, citizens one nation living at the expense of others, within all societies enjoy the luxury of a few rich without the poor performance during this run surpluses from which they benefit themselves.
Even though I think that most people would agree with this statement, seems to have changed little in the ground state, since we have grown beyond the hunter-gatherer culture.
We've already achieved so much:
equal rights, independent courts, universal suffrage, international law, equal opportunity ...
How was it and why we can not do the last step?
Everyone , is equipped with his socialization with his own sense of justice that is the motor of all these changes.
However, to date there is no end in sight of the political desire for justice even though obviously the majority of people they want.
reason enough to consider the issue of justice and to consider exactly why we have created but not a just society for all.
The term sense of justice tells us already that it is a subjective concept of justice. There may be as many forms as there are people perceived justice.
On the other hand, people gather like-minded of justice in organizations.
employed Perhaps the first religions to the justice. Every religion seems important aspects of justice in their rules should be fixed.
fail Nevertheless, all major religions is to be disabled. On the contrary, according to Marvin Harris great world religions have in common are the following aspects: *
you legitimize the claim to power of the ruling class.
* You try injustice to the members of the lower classes as from God (the gods / karma / ...) to present determined.
* To balance a release in a next life, a paradise ... promised if you tolerate the injustice without protest.
religions contribute Ultimately, therefore, avoid speaking positively, as a stabilizer of the overthrow of successful cultures. They are thus an important but why let the evolution of a just society still coming.
Nevertheless, there have been always those who do not come to terms with the injustice and oppose her. Revolutions and reformations were the result. More and more aspects of justice found its way into society. This, the influence of religion has been pushed back is not surprising.
has now been formed in our country a more or less secular society. Known, we live in a parliamentary democracy in a stratified capitalist economic system.
people engaged with a sense of justice out politically, to do this in a political group or party. Each party (or organization) does it produce a particular aspect of justice and prioritize certain aspects of justice in different ways.
These aspects include: intergenerational equity,
environmental justice, social justice, fair, and Protective justice, legal justice, procedural justice, equity, equality, justice Kontributive ...
Aspects of justice are thus in the political conflict.
A party's performance justice has to bring its measures for redistribution is assessed differently than a party to dis the social justice has prescribed.
The absence of a political grouping of environmental justice has led to the founding of the Green Party.
A Parliamentary democracy will be able to find, therefore, at best, a compromise between different forms of justice feeling.
A stratified capitalist society like our attempts not to be socially just. Social injustice is part of the capitalist system and is legitimized by various mechanisms. As mentioned above
plays in our society, the religious legitimation of an important role. Max Weber describes in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" as the idea of the power of justice to our modern Protestantism layered capitalism could lead.
I feel is interesting in this light as based on the idea of social justice, socialist labor movement in the religion as well as confronting the social exploitation, so they (originally) equates even.
This conflict (power of justice vs. social justice) largely dictates our policy since the end of 19Jh.
The major achievement in the 20th century, however, the issue of equity. It finds expression in the vertical mobility within the layered system and the legitimacy that makes us the inherent injustice of social stratification bearable. It is closely linked with the idea of justice linked to performance. Injustice can be so since the founder. "Who's arm is itself to blame."
Apparently everyone is able to rise independently of the layer of his parents, in one life in excess of the benefiting layers. Allegedly, because many scientific studies show that the exchange does not take place almost and the layers are very stable. This trend has intensified in recent years even. This is a new means of legitimation of injustice, the media.
The media seem to be able to simulate a particular kind of justice. In our case you can make it the appearance of vertical mobility to be maintained even though it takes place in reality, hardly. Ultimately, the media are in turn dependent on the real obstacle to a just society.
Those who benefit from injustice are always a few, but you are much better able to determine proportional generate the development of a society than those of the surplus. They are the earlier the rise of religion would allow a world religion, or prevent, or take today influence on political parties and parliamentarians and influence public opinion in their favor.
This is the conflict between the (alleged) performance equity and social justice is an imbalance that has been resolved in any modern society and yet again many perceive as "unjust".
I report here mainly on capitalist society. What little benefit from the injustice, but also true for socialist systems to remain in the service of justice and other aspects of justice on the track. This will benefit the party elites public opinion to control or suppress.
still much more that goes for other stratified societies (dictatorships, oligarchies, etc.) without inhibition in which the elites siphon off the profits and the misachten virtually all aspects of justice.
Can a subjective sense at all to be a good guide for creating a society? Justice in all its forms is to mobilize the people. but you can be the basis for political decisions?
As the sense of justice of the people through religion, ideology and manipulation can be heavily influenced and lacks any scientific basis need political action in other standards.
Moreover, the conflict between social justice and equity performance does not seem to resolve. Our policy is issued in the ideological dispute their starting point is an indefinable sense of justice.
has in the Parliamentary democracy is a generational justice only a weak lobby. Kontributive Justice (The right to participation) will in all power structures like on the track.
A justice between societies has also never been able to develop.
"The moral principles of international politics have not evolved since Genghis Khan" (Noam Chomsky).The twentieth century was
(in Europe), an age of plenty. We could not allow injustice to society without compromising because we were able to achieve thanks to the unsustainable exploitation of resources such as surplus of which has never previously existed.
was in those circumstances even possible over unjust participating privileged to steadily improve the prosperity of all classes, which gave an apparent progress towards greater justice.
is the end of growth but a radical change of society means that may be of this magnitude without precedent.
If we this as a functioning society want to meet is justice in my opinion not the right engine of the political balance.
righteousness is an emotion that can lead to ideology and religion but also to fanaticism and radicalism. The opposite of religion, ideology, fanaticism and radicalism is the scientific reason.
the basis of a political decision must be the reason not emotion. If you weigh between two forms of justice, a decision must only science can provide the right arguments.
scale of this decision be the common good of society. It can not be in favor of the common good if a few of the surplus . Benefit It can no more serve the common good if performance does not follow fair wages. Unsustainable policy is not in the interest of future generations.
The parties to hold on to their ideologies and the rigidity of the shape of their parliaments lose their legitimacy because they rule over the common good. They serve only emotions they themselves have created controversy and populism.
The true facts of political decisions, the profiteers and money, all that is withheld from the voters and sometimes published only under pressure.
is apparently enough justice done, whereas in reality the interests of individual served. Somehow it manages in the end always in the public interest to justify adverse decisions by the pursuit of greater justice.
Our sense of justice has become the plaything of PR and propaganda. It will be suspended from hyped in the press some cases, such as Florida or Rolf Klaus Zumwinkel cook the soul of the people up if that is being requested.
was a result of the former drive a means of social progress of the reaction. We have fallen into lethargy silent, seeing that justice seems to always win.
the pursuit of justice as a driving force of our social development, has outlived it.
We must emancipate them and claim their place at the political reason.
Appendix:
book:
"The Knowledge of money - on the road to financial bourgeoisie" Martin Schürz (social scientists, wealth researcher):
"In the public debate competing structural explanations of human behavior with individualized attributions of responsibility.
Social inequality can be understood as the result of an individually attributable to conduct, that belongs wealth or poverty of the affected deserved.
or the position in the social hierarchy is viewed as an effect of structural causes, such as unequal starting conditions, under which individuals meet each other on the market. . Depends on the answer to these questions, such as economic policy response to social inequality "
>> On the side of armutskonferenz.at << wird man besonders fündig wenn man nach dem Author "Martin Schürz" sucht.
studies / articles on social mobility:
Christian Bjørnskov, (Aarhus University), Axel Dreher (University of Goettingen), Justina AV Fischer (Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata"), Jan Schnellenbach (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg): Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality Thurs not match
Christian Science Monitor 'Upward Mobility' in real decline, studies charge
New York Times "How Class Works"
Social Mobility in Britain - the 'Oxford Studies'
OECD: Intergenerational Social Mobility: a family affair?
0 comments:
Post a Comment