ACCORDING TO ONE’S ABILITIES AND ONE’S WORK?

By definition children born to different families cannot have equal opportunities. And even if a child is born in a privileged family his fate is not predetermined and his life is not "packaged" and compartmentalized. Yes, such a child will have more opportunities for a carefree existence but there is less likelihood of him becoming more independent and practical. Nor should one discount aspects of his education and priorities. In some privileged families considerable amounts are invested in children's education. In others very moderate attention is focused on this question - stress is placed on the fact that the achievement of a certain aim can always be bought as, for example, in certain cases with driving licences.

In other not very privileged families children are encouraged from the cradle to believe that it is only through work and a good education that you can attain certain heights, material wealth and other benefits. And such parents invest even their own inconsiderable earnings in their child's education. But in this case no-one can guarantee whether it will work out right or not. Something will work out, but how?

Much also depends on the tenacity of the person, their character, strength of will and other emotional and intellectual qualities. And Lady Luck plays a significant role in all this. 

Life and fate can spring unimaginable surprises. Parents may impress solid values in us about dignity, a good education and kindness. They may bring us up in purity, comfort and order, with our clothes freshly cleaned and pressed, new outfits and presents for the holidays and all the comforts of home. But our neighbours' children, who have spent all their carefree childhood on the streets, dirty and grubby, had a poor education and as a result failed to get into the institute. But now they dress up in the latest fashions, are comfortably off and drive around in expensive foreign cars and make a fuss of their parents. One comes across such stories more often than not. So does that mean that the theory of social justice and the rules which separate our lives into black and white don't always apply? Or maybe that is social justice?

Parents don't like these questions and they are unable to give meaningful explanations. "The main thing is that my children have grown up good people," they say when people make such arguments and try to understand the rules of life. It isn't so easy to make sense of matters of social justice if life itself is not always just. So we tried to get our respondents to explain what social justice is and how to achieve it.

An Azerbaijani graduate from the University of Essex (United Kingdom) Svetlana Tsareva: 

In the West they usually understand social justice to be a society of equal opportunities. People can belong to various social strata but they must have the opportunity with the help of their ability and work to progress up the social ladder. But at the same time, the concept of social justice also includes the opportunity to use such benefits as leisure, the opportunity to eat ecologically pure products, obtain food for thought and spend more time with one's family. So, in the western world today more and more people are becoming devotees of a philosophy of life called "downshifting". This term means a philosophy of life for your own sake and a rejection of other stereotype objectives imposed by society. Because, if you think about it, a human life full of money and boundless opportunities doesn't always bring happiness. Frequently, in order to acquire wealth and other advantages a person  works long and  hard without rest and normal food, at the same time losing one's spirituality, one's health and in some cases, one's family, too. Downshifting is a kindred concept of simple living and also the simplified religious philosophy of Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy. Those who count themselves among the downshifters are inclined to reject a desire for the hyped-up commonly accepted benefits such as constantly increasing one's material wealth, career development, directing their lives for the sake of themselves and their family. At any moment, at the peak of their glory, they may discard everything and say to themselves - stop it right there and start living away from the bustle of the city, in other words, they become hermits, living off nature in their own home. I think this must also be a part of equal opportunities.

Teacher and philologist, Rena Babayeva:

I don't think that social justice is a concept that is detached from the concept of democracy. And in a certain sense the striving for democracy has to be underpinned by a striving for social justice. There is not and cannot be complete equality in society but it seems to me that social justice assumes the possibility of a life and not an existence on the brink of survival. Everyone must enjoy social benefits in equal measure. To achieve this the state must see to it that all social institutions in the country based on a strong social policy and health operate like clockwork.

IT entrepreneur Eldar Manafov:

I have become convinced that there is no social justice in the world and this concept is a rather relative one. After the world financial crisis the outline of a "platonic state" in which I would like to live went out of my head, and at one time my dreams took me away to a life in Europe. Now I no longer want to go there because I believe that even if my life here is far from ideal it is unlikely to be any better among strangers. The reports about social protests in the "gold billion" states lead one to sad thoughts, and the "ILO's Declaration on social justice for a fair globalization" reminds me of the programme for building communism. Recently I have felt sad from the realization that there is no perfection or justice in the world.

Pensioner Rafiq Muxtarov:

Social justice is the satisfactions of the demands of man as determined by society, access to the elementary benefits of modern civilization and basic freedoms as defined by international law. This assumes that however weak, physically helpless, lazy, stupid, old or young, from a wealthy or a poor family a person may be he must have access to good, free health, education, personal security, information and transport and have a normal minimum wage. However, in all societies the laws are such that when it provides its members with this minimum wage it starts to distribute the surplus "unequally" - between those who are stronger, more fortunate, more enterprising and more industrious. Then you have social injustice, such as we saw in barracks communism and may be seen in today's capitalism. In capitalism, not even the smallest amount is left of this "sunny" surplus which could have been used by the poor, the sick and the weak, and in communism the fair distribution of revenue was denied even to those who had a good education and worked hard.

In keeping track of the news I came to the conclusion that there has never been social justice in the US. The weak are unable to count on a minimum wage but the wealthy have so much. And in this system of values the Americans contrive to call on the concepts of justice, freedom and equal opportunities. I think that social justice has been achieved. It seems to me that the highest level of social justice has been achieved in Scandinavia, in north-west Europe in general, Canada and Australia.