Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Social justice principles form the ethical backbone of nearly every contemporary debate you'll encounter in ethics coursework—from healthcare allocation to criminal justice reform to environmental policy. You're being tested not just on what these principles mean, but on how they interact, conflict, and provide frameworks for resolving real-world dilemmas. Understanding concepts like distributive justice, procedural fairness, intersectionality, and collective responsibility will help you analyze case studies and construct coherent arguments on exams.
These principles don't exist in isolation. They overlap, reinforce each other, and sometimes create genuine ethical tensions (equity vs. equality, individual rights vs. collective good, present needs vs. future sustainability). The strongest exam responses demonstrate that you understand these relationships. Don't just memorize definitions—know which principle applies to which type of ethical problem and how different thinkers would prioritize them.
These principles address the fundamental question: How should resources, opportunities, and burdens be allocated across society? They move beyond simple equality (everyone gets the same) toward more nuanced frameworks that account for need, merit, and systemic barriers.
Compare: Equity vs. Distributive Justice—both concern fair allocation, but equity focuses on outcome-based adjustments while distributive justice provides theoretical frameworks (Rawlsian, utilitarian, libertarian) for determining what "fair" means. If an FRQ asks you to evaluate a policy, identify which framework is being applied.
These principles focus on how decisions are made rather than just what outcomes result. The underlying insight: legitimate outcomes require legitimate processes, and those affected by decisions deserve voice in making them.
Compare: Procedural Justice vs. Participation—procedural justice asks "Was the process fair?" while participation asks "Who had a seat at the table?" A process can be technically fair yet exclude affected voices. Strong ethical analysis addresses both dimensions.
These principles address who we are and how social categories shape ethical obligations. The core insight: justice requires seeing people in their full complexity, not reducing them to single characteristics.
Compare: Diversity vs. Intersectionality—diversity acknowledges that different groups exist, while intersectionality analyzes how membership in multiple groups simultaneously shapes experience. An FRQ might ask you to explain why diversity initiatives alone may fail to address intersectional disadvantage.
These principles concern who has control and how power should be distributed. The underlying tension: between individual autonomy and collective action, between helping others and enabling self-determination.
Compare: Empowerment vs. Advocacy—empowerment builds capacity for self-determination, while advocacy involves others speaking on behalf of affected groups. Ethical tension arises when well-meaning advocates substitute their judgment for those they claim to help.
These principles address what we owe each other and how individual actions connect to broader social outcomes. The core question: What responsibilities extend beyond our immediate relationships?
Compare: Social Responsibility vs. Solidarity—social responsibility emphasizes individual duty to act ethically, while solidarity emphasizes collective bonds and mutual obligation. Both matter, but solidarity specifically addresses power imbalances and shared struggle against oppression.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Fair Distribution | Equity, Distributive Justice, Accessibility |
| Process Fairness | Procedural Justice, Participation and Democracy |
| Identity Recognition | Diversity and Inclusion, Intersectionality, Cultural Competence |
| Individual Agency | Empowerment, Non-discrimination, Human Rights |
| Collective Duty | Social Responsibility, Solidarity, Sustainability |
| Active Change | Advocacy, Empowerment, Participation |
| Systemic Analysis | Intersectionality, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice |
| Future Orientation | Sustainability, Empowerment, Accessibility |
Which two principles both address fairness but focus on different dimensions—one on outcomes and one on processes? Explain how they might conflict in a specific policy scenario.
How does intersectionality complicate a diversity initiative that focuses on increasing representation of single identity categories? Provide an example.
Compare empowerment and advocacy: When might prioritizing one over the other create ethical problems? Which principle helps resolve this tension?
A city allocates pandemic relief funds equally to all neighborhoods regardless of infection rates or income levels. Which principles does this approach satisfy, and which does it violate? Defend your analysis.
Explain how solidarity differs from social responsibility. Why might a utilitarian and a communitarian philosopher evaluate these principles differently?