Good article. I think your equal opportunity shot at the left was a bit weak and contrived, but I suppose it was needed for some show of political balance given the thrust of the argument clearly indicts the orthodoxies of the right more than the left's.

Your argument that markets are fundamentally contingent creations, which are only possible through sustained moral, political and legal institution building is fundamentally undeniable. Unfortunately, it also happens to run contrary to the mother's milk of just about every business school in the country, and uncomplicated neo-classical economic orthodoxies that have crept into a host of other vocations and academic disciplines in modern times.

Good article bit nevertheless I will make a couple of suggestions.

"Ethics is objective, founded on the intrinsic worth of persons."

The subject does not agree with the predicate. The intrinsic worth of persons does not mean that ethics are objective - but it can mean that they are universal. A subtle, but important difference in moral reasoning.

"Because humans have a certain nature, they have certain rights."

More to the point they have certain needs.

"It is actually possible to take planned action to improve society."

Well yes. Taking Hayek and the so-called economic rationalists to issue they seem to forget that their beautiful model requires empirical foundations. The ability for an economic actor to make a rational decision is dependent on a lack of biological *and* social coercion.

A very conservative and narrow explication of Catholic social justice which supports the status quo while preaching that we should all be nicer to each other. It simply isn't good enough if you're a refugee, homeless, disabled, chronically ill, live in an isolated region, illiterate or penniless (for example).

The cardboard king - in this formulation - can get away with highway robbery so long as he gives a bit to charity (for tax purposes).

FrankGol hasn't taken on board a word of what my original argument said. Social justice theory is a theory of *justice*, not of charity. Refugees, the disabled and their carers, etc have rights, that is claims on the State/economic system. The theory is however to a degree conservative in saying that it might be a good idea to preserve a healthy State/economic system so as to be able to pay out on the claims.

All notions of “social justice” are founded in a sense of ethic and morality.

Social justice is about respecting others and being compassionate toward others.

“compassion” is a uniquely “human” characteristic which government cannot dispense. Compassion recognises the uniqueness of the beneficiary of the compassionate action separately from all other possible beneficiaries. Government has no capacity to dispense such “qualitative discretion”

the error of FrankGols “It simply isn't good enough if you're a refugee, homeless, disabled, chronically ill, live in an isolated region, illiterate or penniless.”

What can we say, if you are a refugee, you are probably enjoying the benevolence of Australia freedom and receiving nothing, compared to the oppression and murder of the place of origin.

“Homelessness” for which some are themselves “responsible”.

do we “equalise” the “disabled” and “illiterate” by deny education to the literate and make the able-bodied wear shackles?

If one lives in an isolated area, “Move”!

“penniless” Some of the penniless spend everything on poker machines whereas others, with the same income, balance their budget and manage to save.

Chronically ill – as someone who could claim to be one of them,

I manage it, deal with it, visit my doctor and take daily medication. I am not complaining or expecting alone else to treat me differently to a person in full health (and with whom I compete for business).

Whining about the lot of some folk whose lives may be blighted (to a lesser or greater extent), is no solution.

“Social Justice” does not justify imposing restraints on the general population or the curtailment of personal discretion through the levying of taxes to supposedly finance a government managed “social justice system”

Far better we consider the words of one of the worlds leading politicians of the 20th century

“We want a society where people are free to make choices,
to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate.
This is what we mean by a moral society;
not a society where the state is responsible for everything,
and no one is responsible for the state.” - Margaret Thatcher

Engaging, well written – and still, as FrankGol says, a pretty conservative account of Catholic social teaching.

To take one major point: it’s a game claim to suggest that ‘sending in the army’ to Indigenous communities is a good solution to the problems there. That’s the author’s opinion, not the Church’s. There are no grounds for suggesting that this action was in line with Catholic social teaching. In fact, the Catholic bishops voiced significant concerns about it (http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bishops/confpres/20070705451.htm). Its long-term benefits are far from obvious so far.

There’s a very meliorist tone to the claim that ‘social justice is already here’. In fact, the poor are always with us – but you wouldn’t guess it from this piece. There’s no hint of the deeply radical change that a commitment to Christian social justice really demands if poverty is to be alleviated, refugees accommodated and our responsibility to the environment observed.

To suggest that intellectual property laws are a splendid example of social justice at work is also tendentious. Modern intellectual property laws seem to me to protect the strong and, only as an afterthought, chuck a few bob towards the true creators of the content.

Social justice is a lot more uncomfortable than you’d guess from this article.