Critiquing: How Does Adding an Adjective to the Word “Justice” Corrupt It?

March 23, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Justice Redefined — DEI Controversy — Justice and Language — Historical Manipulation — DEI and Employment

---

Introduction

The content, titled How Does Adding an Adjective to the Word “Justice” Corrupt It?, dated March 23, 2023, from #STRask – Stand to Reason, delves into the argument that adjectives added to the term “justice” fundamentally alter and corrupt its meaning. This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content, identifies unsubstantiated claims, and highlights logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Outline of Main Arguments

1. Justice and Adjectives:
   • Adding adjectives to “justice” politicizes and distorts its meaning.
2. Examples of Corruption:
   • Terms like “social justice” and “reproductive justice” are cited as examples of corruption.
3. Historical and Political Contexts:
   • References to Marxist ideology and historical manipulation of language.
4. DEI Committees:
   • Discussion on the implications of joining Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committees.
5. Language and Manipulation:
   • Emphasis on the manipulation of language in totalitarian regimes.

Justice and Adjectives

The primary claim that “adding any adjective to the word ‘justice’ corrupts it” is asserted without substantial evidence. The content suggests, “Justice is justice. Okay, certain things are due people, and the word justice captures the notion of what is appropriately due people,” but fails to provide empirical support for the assertion that adjectives inherently corrupt the concept of justice. This claim could be tested by examining historical and contemporary uses of terms like “social justice” to determine if they indeed lead to corruption of the base concept or if they provide necessary contextual nuance.

Examples of Corruption

The argument uses terms like “social justice” and “reproductive justice” to illustrate the alleged corruption. It states, “So you might have social justice. Okay? Then that means this is a Marxist notion that entails that people are poor because they’ve been oppressed.” This interpretation is a hasty generalization, assuming a singular meaning and dismissing other interpretations or uses of the term. Furthermore, it ignores the complex socio-political contexts in which these terms are used, oversimplifying and politicizing the argument.

Historical and Political Contexts

The content draws parallels with historical manipulation of language, referencing Marxist ideology and totalitarian regimes. For instance, “We see these patterns in totalitarian governments. And it’s not just the Third Reich, but it’s also the Soviet Union.” This analogy is a false equivalence, comparing the addition of adjectives to “justice” with the manipulative language used in totalitarian regimes without acknowledging the vast differences in context and intent. It serves more as a rhetorical device than a logical argument.

DEI Committees

Regarding DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) committees, the content suggests, “DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. And this is a euphemism for critical race theory.” This claim lacks substantiation and could be seen as a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting DEI initiatives to dismiss them more easily. The argument further suggests that participating in DEI committees equates to endorsing a “divisive, controversial political ideology,” without considering the varied and nuanced goals of such committees.

Language and Manipulation

The content emphasizes the manipulation of language, stating, “As Christians, we need to respect language and the meaning of language. After all, God has communicated to us with words.” This point underscores the importance of clear and precise language but does not logically connect to the broader argument about adjectives corrupting justice. The appeal to religious authority here serves as an appeal to tradition fallacy, suggesting that deviations from traditional language use are inherently wrong.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Several logical fallacies and cognitive biases are evident in the content:

1. Hasty Generalization:
   • The content states, “whenever you add any adjective to the word ‘justice,’ you corrupt it.” This is a hasty generalization, as it assumes that all uses of adjectives with “justice” lead to corruption without considering specific contexts or providing empirical evidence. For instance, terms like “environmental justice” address specific issues that the base term “justice” might not fully capture.
2. False Equivalence:
   • The analogy between adding adjectives to “justice” and language manipulation in totalitarian regimes is a false equivalence. The content states, “We see these patterns in totalitarian governments. And it’s not just the Third Reich, but it’s also the Soviet Union.” This comparison ignores the different purposes and effects of language use in these vastly different contexts.
3. Straw Man Fallacy:
   • The portrayal of DEI initiatives as merely a rebranding of critical race theory (CRT) is a straw man fallacy. The content claims, “DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. And this is a euphemism for critical race theory.” This misrepresentation simplifies DEI initiatives to easily dismiss them without engaging with their actual principles and objectives.
4. Appeal to Tradition:
   • The content appeals to tradition by arguing, “As Christians, we need to respect language and the meaning of language.” This suggests that traditional uses of language are inherently superior and that any changes or additions are corruptions, without providing a logical basis for this preference.
5. Slippery Slope:
   • There is a slippery slope argument present in the content when it states, “if I need something, I’m owed that thing. Justice provides me with that thing. Well, how will the gospel make sense in that world?” This assumes that any change in the definition of justice will inevitably lead to the collapse of moral and religious understanding without substantiating the causal link.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. “Adding any adjective to the word ‘justice’ corrupts it.”
   • This foundational claim lacks empirical support. It is an assertion presented as a universal truth without sufficient evidence. Investigating the impact of adjectives on the perception and application of justice could provide clarity.
2. “DEI is a euphemism for critical race theory.”
   • This assertion conflates distinct concepts and presents them as interchangeable without substantiation. The varied goals and implementations of DEI initiatives require a nuanced understanding that this claim lacks.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test the content’s claims, one could:

• Conduct linguistic research on the impact of adjectives on the perception and application of justice.
• Analyze the outcomes of DEI initiatives to determine if they indeed align with or diverge from the principles of critical race theory.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The degree of belief in the content’s claims should be proportional to the available evidence. In this case, the lack of empirical support and the presence of logical fallacies weaken the arguments presented. A thorough critique must consider the evidence (or lack thereof) behind each claim, emphasizing the need for substantiation.

---

Conclusion

The content presents an argument against adding adjectives to “justice” but does so through unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and rhetorical devices. A critical evaluation reveals significant gaps in logic and evidence, underscoring the importance of substantiating claims and avoiding cognitive biases.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.