Introduction

Arguments about the meaning of justice have been central to political philosophy for thousands of years, certainly since the time of key Greek philosophers. The pedigree of the term ‘social justice’ is much shorter, although considerably longer than many believe to be the case. This chapter briefly addresses the question of how and when ‘justice’ morphed into ‘social justice’ and will summarize central elements of current debates about ‘social justice’ in light of the pressing global social policy imperative, reflected in the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, to integrate economic, social and environmental needs for a more just and sustainable world.

A major challenge now facing proponents of social justice in an economically globalized world and where most states are increasingly multicultural, is whether what has been an almost exclusively Eurocentric or Anglo-American, not to say Judaeo-Christian, understanding of the meaning of social justice provides a framework which is recognizable in other religious, ethnic and cultural contexts.

If it does, then paradoxically we might now be able to talk about the concept of ‘global social justice’ at a time when racism is increasing across the world and social injustice is increasingly being done by majority communities to minorities.

From justice to social justice

Earliest recorded accounts of the nature of justice come from prominent Greek philosophers. In Plato’s Republic, he sets up a debate between Socrates, his teacher, and Thrasymachus, noted for his sophistry, that is, presenting arguments as truth whilst knowing them to be false. In Thrasymachus’ view, justice has only one principle, which was the interest of the stronger, or, representing the centre of power in most states, the government, whether monarchical, dictatorial or democratic. Plato makes it clear, however, that Socrates thought that justice was an eternal moral concept, challenging the view that ‘might is right’. This concept, referred to as natural law, is distinct from the framework of law established in any nation state. Thus killing someone or enslaving them because the law of the land says you should contravenes the precept of natural law; it is unjust. Law does not necessarily deliver justice.

Plato considered his form of justice would be the ideal antidote to what he identified as the excessive individualism characterizing a corrupt, degenerate Athenian society: this individualism finds global expression today in the so-called ‘free’ market promoted by right-wing political parties.