Popularization of social justice in recent times has had profound effects upon the totality of culture and society across the world. Its intentions are pure, and it in itself is something to be championed. The problem is that many of these advocates for liberal change are focusing on both problems and solutions which seem to escape justification by a critical eye in the domain of “truly” representing our situation. Many ideas and methodologies are falling short of meaningful change, and pragmatic utility in the long term.

Here I wish to delineate and articulate explanations of several major categories in the movement towards social justice, and those areas of popular culture that are being advocated as effective that I happen to disagree with for philosophical reasons. I will attempt to critique the areas I believe deserve an honest exposure of their flaws, and how I believe they can be optimized or disregarded – in the name of pragmatic utility, morality, and “truth” in reflecting an optimal navigation of the political and social landscape going forward.

Liberalism in itself is the progressive change within a society towards novel manners of living, towards new rules, towards rectifying outdated regulations, and in optimizing the government – by proxy its people – by altering its customs, standards, and regulations to be in alignment with the “new” values of the people which deserve representation. While all of the critiqued content herein appears to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum, I am in no way degrading the necessity of the liberal party in its useful and beneficial role in progressing the government, pointing out conserved aspects of our social systems which no longer represent the beliefs of the people, and in the general process of “change”. Here I only critique those elements of change I believe to be not founded on rationality, philosophical rigor, and proper moral consideration. I want to look into why these disagreeable (to me) ideas are propagated, based on the personality types of many of their constituents, and why they come to the conclusions they do. In many cases that appear malevolent to a large portion of society, it is often merely due to ignorance in the “perpetrators”. I by no means wish to attribute ill-will on behalf of any advocate of these ideas, I merely wish to expand upon a more nuanced view of their tactics, their “problems, and their “solutions. The issues most disagreed upon are those that are simultaneously the most complex, and it is this complexity that necessitates ignorance – both in the expression and description of problems, is source, and solutions.

SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR PERSONALITY TYPE ANALYSIS

It seems to be a reoccurring trend that many people who identify and embody the modern social justice movement are of a certain personality type which favors an application of critical theory. Many of these individuals are of higher class upbringing and have experiences which are characterized by less externally derived suffering than what the average working class citizen undergoes. Given this societal position, they are quick to recognize the disparity, and posit solutions with perceived moral benefit to those “worse off”, those who experience more environmental suffering. Many of those who identify as social justice warriors that hail from a “higher class upbringing” received more parental attention and individual catering in their upbringing than those they wish to see alleviated from suffering based on social position, and they often have a substantial edge in terms of educational opportunity. This educating, attention, and external economic stability in relation to members of lower classes provides a unique perspective upon the modern social system and its flaws, and has both its ups and downs. The problem which is often neglected, is that they lack the experiential wisdom of someone who has actually been raised within the lower economic classes.

Ignorance of any individual to the experience of any other individual necessitates misunderstandings, especially in regards to the optimal solution for the others benefit. Extrapolated to group identity, and class solution, the complexity grows substantially, and the disparity between perceived optimal solutions and actual pragmatic solutions likewise grows. This makes the perception of those outside of the system which is claimed to need aide often lacking of the knowledge of the actual root of problems, and includes a deficiency in perspective in terms of what pragmatic benefit can actually be provided towards improvement. Good intentions often pave the way to hell, and those who attempt to pave the road for people with whom they have never walked, often pave that hell bent road unknowingly.

People who find themselves identifying with the modern SJW movement often aim at altruistic goals and attempt to better the lot of humankind, especially for the more historically oppressed groups. While almost everyone holds these goals and are in agreement that we ought to raise the tide for everyone, many of the loudest voices of the self-identified SJW group members advocate for methods of doing so which has become disagreeable to many, and there are several flaws in their appropriating of the philosophical method of critical theory. Many who receive the most societal infiltration are doing so through applying critical theory in their attempt to alleviate the suffering of those who are less fortunate than themselves, and they posit massive societal problems for certain groups of people, at the hands of other groups of people, and the media spreads the message of outrage and injustice across the nation. While these proclamations sometimes are rational, just, and morally justified, often times they fail in proper application of critical theory to identify problems without taking into consideration the opportunity benefit the cause of them produces.

These ideas are propagating shortsighted, narrowly defined, and altogether unscientifically grounded solutions to problems that themselves may or may not exist. Often times these critical theory derivations provide the wrong pragmatic solutions to problems rightly uncovered, and in more cases then not, the simplification does a great disservice to reality, and fails to recognize the complexity of situations.

Naivety seems to be the marker of the ideas most pervasively spread by some social justice warriors recently, and this naivety has costly repercussions, not only for society as a whole, but also for those exact groups which they are attempting at helping. While fighting for social justice isn’t intrinsically problematic, on the contrary, it is quite an admirable task, the newest popularizing of its tactics is marked by ignorance of the historicity of systems and institutions, as well as the benefits they accrue to us. It is one thing to fight for social justice and bring forth a progressing of the cultural milieu to be more inclusive, it is another thing to label a population, act, law, regulation, institution, or movement as supporting the oppression of disadvantaged populations when in effect the solutions commit more damage than utility.

Given the “privileged” lifestyle of some of the SJW type advocates, in comparison to the “oppressed” proletariat, they swing far left into liberal socialism to provide monetary relief to lift the tide of the impoverished, they extrapolate individual injustices to apply to the entire system; they publicly denounce the government, education system, police forces, and society at large for being guilty of the crimes of individuals. The group is taken as the unit of measurement, both for the activist’s self-image, and in the projected image of the group, characterizing its members by the worst in the group, and using that as a basis for rhetoric arguing towards either the destruction or reformation of the institution. This is a fallacy of category error, the group must not be mischaracterized by an individual and simultaneously optimized to discover and correct for individual problems. While individual problems must be addressed, and opportunities for their re-education, and growth to being a productive citizen ought to be provided, the generalizing of their actions across a group of people, and the application of restrictive measures across that group, is unjust to those individuals who do not partake in whatever injustice the individual members have proliferated. This can be seen in the recent cases of police brutality and the attempt to criminalize the entire group of police, or in the conversations about reparations being levied against all white individuals, for the crimes of individuals who no longer exist. The primary object of importance in any society, government, or institution is necessarily the individual, and it must be optimized as such. While the bottom up system must be our priority, we cannot, as many social justice advocates frequently – yet correctly – state, ignore the top down influence. Both systems are cybernetically influenced by the manifestation of each other in the present moment, constantly recalibrating and updating, much as consciousness and governments do.

In the area of good intentions, the SJW type are ahead of the pack, yet in terms of naivety and solutions, many of the loudest voices within this movement are lagging behind. The societal division caused by their either correct or incorrect awareness of injustice appears to be causing more harm to the nation than benefit, making us wonder, is abstaining from asking the question a wiser choice? Or is it merely the way in which the message is received producing the division and lack of cohesive unity which we require to adequately solve the problem? Is the effect on the social milieu worth all the claims of injustice, does every claim of social inequity ought to be taken seriously? Or are the systems which propagate such injustice already being optimized, and is there a better way to do it?

This is probably giving too much credit, for I’m assuming the issues in hand by the few justice warriors with legitimate criticisms applies to the totality of those under the heading, which is far from being true. While there is a spectrum of differentiation between every individual in any group, thus far I’ve been focused on those individuals in the group with specific claims, but, there is a much larger group of members within the self-appointed SJW identification tag that have claims that themselves appear to be of criticism for racism, sexism, injustice, and oppression, but are merely based on either wrong data, wrong interpretation of data, and wrong interpretation of the causality of data, such as we see in the wage gap between men and women. Any singular attribution of causality, especially in such complex issues, we can be sure of as being incorrect, as the factors which influence human behavior, over spans of time, are innumerable in scope, and their analysis can be taken on from a multitude of different perspectives, and explained through many frameworks.

CRITICAL THEORY

If applied properly, critical theory can reveal areas of improvement. If you take society as a whole, or any subgroup, whether it’s an institution, government, corporation, or even ideology, and set out with the task of looking for moral shortcomings, whether it be in power inconsistencies, oppression, racism, whatever, and find there to be something, you can take that finding and apply it outside of the critical examination, to apply to the consequences of changing the organization of the “group”. The problem is, if you find this disparity, contradiction, or oppression, yet fail to compare it to the benefit of the whole, or fail to accurately determine its underpinnings, or causal connections, that’s where you get into trouble by attempting to find a solution to a problem that isn’t itself a problem, or a problem that is outweighed by the “positive” sides of the “group”, yet failing to take those into consideration.

Critical theory applied to the aviation industry may find that the seats aren’t designed for overweight people, and that can be seen as oppressive to them. Should the airplane designers take this into consideration? An ideologically possessed person might say that the white male privilege in affording to have the time, trainers, diet, enables more of the “wealthy” or “oppressive” population to be skinny, thus influencing the design of the airplane. I would say there are a lot of partial truths here, but the airplane industry isn’t actually doing anything with negative intentions towards “overweight” people, it may just be economically more feasible, with the given supply and demand, to make airplane seats that way. It just happens to be an unfortunate consequence of capitalism. Can they decide to lose money to be more accommodating? Sure, capitalism allows it. Do I think they should? No, but that’s due to my own belief in the value of exercise and personal health to be incentive rather than allowing reservations for those who voluntarily decide not to. If you look at just the criticism, which is uncovered through critical theory, but don’t apply the correct reasoning, comparison to the benefits, or consideration of a long term value system, and instead come up with a solution that follows an incorrect conceptualization of the “problem” – there obviously will be negative effects.

While alleviating problems to the impoverished, underrepresented, less educated, and those with less opportunities always sounds good, the means by which critical theorists attempt to do so are often not beneficial, and don’t take into consideration the full complexity of the situation. Factors such as those who benefit from the institutions, the economic tide-raising, the trickle-down effect from those who benefit to those who appear not to benefit, all are neglected in examining a system only for its shortcomings. Potential reduction in wellbeing by governmental intervention in these cases can be applied to those on the receiving end as well, as many are apt to instinctively point out.

Racism as the sole cause of criminality in the black conviction rate, sexism as the sole cause of the wage gap, corruption as the sole cause for the 1% being wealthier than the 99%, are all single factor claims that we ought to reevaluate. Where these claims are backed by “good” intentions, they make the mistake of simplicity, generalization, and naivety, and the claims they have, as viewed by an audience who is less educated on the subject than necessary to accurately depict its causality, is swayed by their off base interpretations and attributions of rationale. A simplistic interpretation claiming to be the source of all troubles, has its mass appeal, for obvious reasons. This in turn affects the public milieu towards advocacy of the systemic issues based on causal terms which are obviously not the whole story, sometimes beneficial and crucial to the story, yet, many times, irrelevant to the perceived issue at hand, and even on occasion the issue at hand isn’t even an issue.

Racism in cops is part of the story of conviction rates of minorities, part of. The benefit of the rich in educational opportunities is real, but not unjust. Sexism doesn’t optimally account for the wage gap, but rather a difference in interest can better be attributed to a biological interpretation.

Critical theory is great, but must be applied wisely. Critical thinking, experience, and philosophical consistency in alignment with scientific data is the answer to correctly account for issues in society, political philosophy, cybernetics, and morality, all of which are necessary for optimal politicking. Every issue that faces the world in such a vastly interconnected society is extremely complex to grasp as the factors contributing, and their contributions, are difficult to discern and difficult to evaluate as to their weight in attribution to the outcome. The situation gets even more complicated in discerning an optimal solution, or a system’s alteration and optimizing, and we ought to all work together, in an interdisciplinary way, to find solutions and progress as a society, nation, and world.

The biggest issue with critical theory is it fails to see the useful and beneficial aspects of society, in short, it is in its essential nature to be ignorant of the totality of factors, contributions, and effects of a system. It loses sight of the broad and beneficial for the narrow and destructive. I get that its aimed at what is a problem for society, with an interest to rectify it, but in making that assessment you have to take into account the positive side as well, there’s an opportunity cost in focusing only on the negative and that which is able to be criticized, while it surely is important and valid. If you presuppose injustice or immorality in an institution, domain, or society at large, and have intentions of rectifying it, it appears you are doing something morally justified – and you’re likely to find some downside in every institution. The problem is with the presupposition and if it is improperly formulated the whole enterprise ends up with rational ends that follow from irrational premises. When this happens the solution no longer is beneficial, useful, or moral when taken out of the framework the critical theory is being applied to.

Critical theory promotes looking for problems with discrimination and power imbalance of all kinds, which may not be uncovered without scrutiny. If not done naively, and by someone overcome by ideological possession, it can be beneficial. A beneficial solution that follows from its findings is in direct relation to the person who wields it, just like firearms. It is merely a tool, that, since its conceptualization and elucidation has not been in alignment with its goals of reducing discrimination and injustice in society at large. That being said, it can be useful, and it has its place, the problem is with the incorrect application, and willingness to apply it where it doesn’t belong. Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, and we call firefighters to help the situation, but it could be the case that it’s not smoke, nor is there a fire, it’s just a guy with a vape who isn’t getting cancer from his previous addiction to cigarettes, the firefighters time is wasted, resources are wasted, and the people who were so concerned with the smoke were worried, and worried everyone else around them based on a false assumption.                 

REDISTRIBUTION / DIVERSITY

A movement which harms the majority for the benefit of the minority in the short term, isn’t morally justified solely for doing so, even if historically it was necessary and justified in the long term benefit to the totality of society. In those areas where it has been a necessity, we were pragmatically justified in doing so, such as the detriment to the majority of landowners in the abolition of slavery, or the detriment to the power of most male’s government contribution to society with women’s rights. But to apply this maxim across the board, in modern society, is a fallibilistic tendency, the higher class in any hierarchy isn’t always wrong, they aren’t always culpable of injustice, and individual scenarios must be delineated from the totality of implication of this maxim. Imposing detrimental effects to those higher up any hierarchy for the benefit of those at the bottom is in no way universally applicable, especially where virtues such as competency, effort, and time spent in that hierarchy have been historical requisites to ascension. We find advocate groups promoting the idea of racial and gender representation in politics, colleges, and corporations, which previously have been afforded to those most qualified by competency. In areas such as aviation or the medical field ideas have been posited to the end of equality of outcome, imposing quotas upon the race or gender of the employee hired for the position. In areas of life and death, in areas of the most moral responsibility, we ought to want the most competent person for the job, whether that’s a surgeon, pilot, governor, or teacher, regardless of race and gender. The opportunity cost for the nation, the education system, and economy, all will be negative if these quotas succeed in opting to select for anything other than competency.

To claim moral justification solely upon the grounds of providing a benefit to the minority, such as proposed in many policies advocating for equality of outcome, is a problem that appears to be morally beneficial as those at the bottom have been purported as being “victims” or “oppressed” (which for some individuals is actually the case), but neglects many aspects of the society that hold value as well. We ought to be taking into account the wellbeing of the majority in addition to the minority, and the virtue which has previously been required for ascension. To shortcut the character traits of competence, of personal sacrifice, and educational development required for a place within a hierarchy, such as in the job market, in college acceptance, and in political power, is to shortcut what is most optimal to be developed to be effective within these systems. Since effectiveness is paramount to the education of young, for medical procedures, for governing of a nation, we ought to be more restrictive in explicitly selecting for competency than less. The question of heritage, skin color, or sexual orientation ought to have no place in these domains, given our current position of relative equality of opportunity in the barrier to competency within them.

The subjective experience of the “rich”, the “privileged”, and the “fortunate” still holds moral consideration, regardless of their place in the hierarchy in comparison to others. While minor sacrifices in the lifestyle of the upper class are expected for the benefit of the lower, and claimed as being morally justified, ought those individuals be disregarded in respect to their subjective experience being negatively modified “for the good of others”? Where is the social justice for the rich and privileged, for those who sacrifice, who dedicate time, effort, and subjective wellbeing for ascension? Are those who succeed by the sweat on their brow and bloodshed in persistence not to be taken into consideration? Ought they to be punished for their success through hard work and dedication? Are they merely the source to be utilized for the alleviation of those less accomplished, or do they too deserve social justice? To be successful and raise your children in a good environment isn’t a crime, in fact, it’s a gift not deserved, a grace of sorts, and to attribute that success and benefit to corruption, extortion, and enslavement of the masses is to fall into a conspiratorial mindset, that ought not be generalized across the entire class. While these means to the ends of upper class lifestyle do in fact exist, their prevalence and the generalizing of them to all successful families is off base by a long shot.

There ought to be a way to provide alleviation to the underprivileged, oppressed, and unfortunate, by means that is agreed upon by those who desire to sacrifice, give, and aide them. While not everyone has the same opportunity, and this ought to be rectified, those who do have relatively similar opportunity, and capitalize upon it in a way which is afforded to others yet not traversed, should not be punished for doing so, they ought to be championed, and their stories ought to be used as inspiration for others to rise in a similar manner. The common solution posited by many is merely to tax, regulate, and “redistribute” finances from these upper tier performers to be siphoned to the less accomplished. While there are groups that deserve a better opportunity, and have suffered misfortune, such as the disabled, abused, or victims of violence, it ought to be universally considered that their alleviation is on the hands of all of society (including their own), and not disproportionally to those who do not opt into their alleviation. Local communities that are voluntarily assented to ought to be means enough towards their aide, and improper, disproportionate, allocation of funds from involuntary philanthropists ought not be our go to solution. There is a limit to the degree at which we can siphon off resources from the fortunate to the unfortunate before we make those fortunate into an unfortunate position.

INTERSECTIONALITY

The complexity of group divisions in any intersectional analysis makes the distinction between classes along any domain difficult to delineate, and competency, effort, background, education, and other areas of which “privilege” can be attributed, are altogether innumerable in their relation to any individual. Correct identification of different groups from which to allocate funds for welfare programs therefore becomes next to impossible, as the factors which contribute to any individual’s intersectional analysis are extensive, and anyone is likely to fall into an “unprivileged” grouping along some metric of analysis, regardless of their other characteristics. There is more than merely the financial class that distinguishes the fortunate, we all fall upon a spectrum of benefit and detriment in our developed constitution.

At what point to do we distinguish someone as fortunate or otherwise? At what degree of racial profiling do we delegate someone to a class of “unprivileged”? Race, family situation, upbringing, environmental factors, are all as complex individually as are factors attributed to one’s financial situation. These things are in no way “black or white”, pun intended, or easy to define outside of the individual level. The inadequacy of definitions such as “richness”, “coloredness”, “privilege”, even in the domain of sexuality, are quite contentious and difficult to pin down. Where do we draw the line in any form of discriminating differences so as to classify different groups? What combination of groupings is to be selected for against others? Given the limitlessness of potential groupings based on any irrelevant factor, we find the correct defining and characterizing of classes of people to be wholly inaccurate in depicting anything of real substance. Intersectionality runs infinitely deep, and hasn’t been properly delineated with a formal definition, nor do I believe it ever can be. As is now hopefully commonly known, there are more differences within any racial grouping than between them. To make arbitrary labelled groups the emphasis of selection, to make the group identity the order of importance in a society necessitates the degradation of the individual, and doesn’t accurately represent any individual within that grouping. The level of the individual must be that which is taken into primary consideration, it is the only domain in which accuracy can in any beneficial manner be depicted.

The overlap or absence of qualifying factors which constitute per the intersectional analysis of what makes someone “unfortunate or unprivileged” hasn’t been adequately extrapolated upon, and at what point do we make class qualifiers important in the face of racial or gender classifications? The blurring of the lines between degrees of “misfortune” and “less privileged” are currently delegated upon social perception. Currently we are basing our perception of privilege upon mere appearance, in a perfect world many of these liberal idealists would be calculable by a “privilege” system according to individual characteristics. Being that this ability to calculate intersectional evaluability in terms of societal ability, and opportunity, is impossible, how can we possibly delegate laws, quotas, or societal movements based upon it?

OPTIMIZATION

To merely delegate the equality of classes or groups to governmental control, is to impose authoritarian control upon many who earned their position through embodied virtue. It isn’t merely upon those who are corrupt, and cheated their way into financial success, its purported across the board. Governmental solutions often stem from these higher financial brackets, which, while themselves in the minority, many individually are legally required to aide in ways that are contrary to their will. Those who vote towards higher taxes of the rich, who themselves fall into that bracket, ought to be the only contributing, as it is their voluntary will. To extrapolate the involuntary will of many who do not agree with the distribution method, or its end recipients, ought to only be required to use their funds as necessitated by the state or local governments in which they reside and have more of a say in effecting change, not for things they do not assent to. The democratic process ought to defend for injustice in this regard, but given the minority position of those in the higher ranks of hierarchies, they often are underrepresented in regards to their wellbeing. This is obviously quite controversial, and counter to the common narrative, as those at the top of the hierarchies often wield the most power, influence, and means to wellbeing. I am not negating this by any means, I merely am stating that in a democratic system that holds the potential to do what it was devised as doing, that is, being run for the people, it has the potential of authoritarian redistribution for the majority of the population at the expense of others. This isn’t controversial, and it often is beneficial in a utilitarian sense, I merely want it to be recognized at the same time that we must not shrink from consideration of those on the end from which we are taking. They are human beings from which our moral consideration holds ground, and their wellbeing, despite their position, is not negligible. In their negligence the system actually holds the potential of oppressing the rich and powerful, as paradoxical as that sounds.

In the master-slave dialectic the slave in the final analysis gains conscious development through independence that isn’t afforded to the master who is dependent upon the slave for his wellbeing, so ought the members in higher standing in any hierarchy be disregarded for the advancement of those at the bottom – when they provide the means for their actualization and ascension? In extreme times of war, or in past ages of racial and gender inequality in the eyes of the law, this surely was necessary. Now that the law is impartial, and the problem is merely cultural, group orientated, and class orientated, yet not hindered by the law, we ought to strive for individual decision making of the rich, rather than compulsion by the government. This means reducing the slide into further socializing the economy, and promoting a laisse faire economy. This doesn’t mean that a pool based socialist system can’t still run in parallel to pure capitalism, merely that it ought to be opt in, as insurance is. If people are given the decision to opt into socialist programs in regards to any domain of financial redistribution, they gain the benefit of potentially being aided, as well as providing aide that the system dictates to those in need – based on their own values. In this way, we can satisfy both ends of the financial political divide, maintain freedom and democracy, and provide support for those in need and wish to help, without validating the right to economic and personal freedom our nation is supposed to stand for.

Mere hand outs and governmental aide for those who are of less fortunate standing may actually increase their dependence rather than empower them towards a rise in any hierarchy for which they are interested in having the opportunity to ascend. The same goes for quotas based on race or gender. To regard any monetary aide as universally beneficial, is surely to miss a nuanced argument about its detriment. Is it better to give food to those who are hungry or to teach them how to provide for it themselves? Is it better to give a solution to one’s problems, or aide them in discovering the solution for themselves? Is it better to move someone up the hierarchy by your own hand, or to provide them with the opportunity and education that they can engage in to earn that spot themselves? In allowing people to fail, and having real life social and economic repercussions for doing so, there is a form of tough love that is eliminated by the safety net.

While a type of safety net that supplies basic needs for all citizens is beneficial, a safety net that allows people to abuse the system while just contributors work hard to make ends meets is surely an injustice to those who are working from the bottom of the economic system to better themselves. By crying outrage and attempting to burn the system down, many social justice advocates in the modern era blind themselves to the benefits the system has accrued to the majority of people, and rather than looking to spread those benefits to those who don’t have the opportunity, they seek to overcompensate those outside of the walled garden for their endured oppression, at the detriment of those within, which, is the majority of people.

MORALITY

Everyone deserves moral consideration, as we all have moral worth. In many schools of thought, all life has moral worth, or at least that which has a subjective experience that can be better or worse. Given that all humans, despite their race, sex, age, financial class, share this propensity for better or worse subjective experience, they all must be considered when we’re talking about systems which have implications that can alter this subjective experience. Therefore, the domain of inquiry which holds the greatest moral responsibility – politics – (as it has the most widespread effect amongst the greatest number of people) holds the greatest power to effect the subjective experience of people. The complexity of issues, and their moral consideration needs an extension. As we’ve included environment consideration, non-human species consideration, racial, sexual, and gender consideration, we’ve simultaneously been recently inclined to regard as morally less important those who have previously been afforded higher consideration.

The raising of tides within the standard of a class that in its entirety has been historically regarded as higher in the social hierarchy, such as that of straight white males, is now regarded by many to be hold less morally considered weight as an entire group. Individuals within this broad group hold the same variance as any other group, many individuals within it are impoverished, have been given unfortunate familial situations, and face the same challenges by the same systems that effect other intersectional groups. Mental capacity, competency, financial situation, opportunities afforded, are varied within any group, within any race, and to discriminate against an entire group based upon the historical position of some individuals with the same skin color, and to extrapolate that privilege and negative character resemblance across the group, is by definition racist. To characterize individuals upon the color of their skin, at their detriment, is social injustice, and needs to be rectified, as any racial consideration ought to be placed upon equal footing.

As we’ve worked to undue the wrongs our forefathers committed in racial inequity, we ought not reinstate their methods against any racial, gender, or sexual intersectional group, ever again. We ought not work to repair certain intersection groupings at the detriment of others, if those groups are predicated upon race, sexual orientation, or gender, but rather we must maintain equality across all domains in regards to opportunity, and recognize the variance across humankind, not merely in these specific groups, but across areas that actually matter. “Social justice” ought to be primarily for those who are actually oppressed, such as victims of totalitarian corruption, like those in Venezuela, North Korea, or China. It ought to be for those individuals within our societies which have been impoverished based on family upbringing, educational opportunity, physical disability, regardless of their skin color, gender, or other trivial characteristics. Any individual which has been unjustly (properly discerned) served by a system ought to be campaigned for, and the system ought to take into consideration the whole of society, rather than a narrow scope of it. My main point is that the complexity of society as a whole, its shortcomings, its progress, its many factors, is quite larger than the succinct narratives which have been used as a description of a whole. This complexity needs to be addressed, if we are to realistically improve the system which is complex.

CONCLUSION

Many areas of moral consideration escape the public eye, and many ideas of a disagreeable nature exist upon rational grounds which may provide benefit to systems. It is the job of any philosopher to expose these nuanced views, to propose counter points to common narratives, and critically examine even the use of critical theory. In a meta sense, we have the ability to apply critical theory towards the institutions and segment of society that primarily adhere to belief in the overarching utility of critical theory as being the optimal philosophical method of “improving” society, and in so doing, reveal the flaws within that group itself. Taking that group as the sample size, apply critical theory, I wonder what there is to be found in the power that group holds, and its benefit or detriment to society at large, given its large influence, and the effect that shouting fire has upon those near and far.