CHAPTER ONE

1.0   INTRODUCTION:

1.1   BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The idea of social injustice is pivotal to much contemporary moral and political philosophy, and yet mysteriously this concept has repeatedly failed to attract the detailed analysis it deserves. What makes this lacuna in the literature even more surprising is the fact that the idea of social justice has attracted more attention than any other single concept in moral and political philosophy over the past 50 years.

How could so much be written about social justice, and so little about social injustice? This book is an attempt to rebalance this anomaly. There is an apparently plausible explanation for why so little has been written about social injustice. Political philosophers have a tendency to refer to social injustice merely as the lack of social justice; therefore by focusing (directly) on issues of social justice, they also (indirectly) shed light on the idea of social injustice. Or so they think.

This is the view, for example, of John Rawls – arguably the most influential exponent of the pivotal role of social justice in contemporary political philosophy. After telling us that justice (in its more general conception) can be expressed in the following terms: ‘All social values – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage’,

Rawls (1972, 62) goes on to say that ‘Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all’. In other words, for Rawls injustice is simply the absence of justice. For too long the relationship between social justice and social injustice has been misunderstood. It is not a case of social injustice being the lack or violation of social justice, as many (like Rawls) seem to assume. Instead, the opposite is closer to the truth: social justice is the absence of social injustice.

 Whatever our reservations about Hobbes’s views on justice, he was fundamentally right when he claimed that ‘whatsoever is not unjust, is just’ (Leviathan, ch.15, 2); Hobbes deserves praise for getting the relationship between injustice and justice right. We should think of justice as the opposite of injustice, not the other way around. This point was made more recently, and more elegantly, by Judith Shklar (1990).

Chaim Perelman (1963) reminds us that here we have an aristocratic formula of justice: ‘It consists in treating human beings, not in accordance with criteria intrinsic to the individual, but according as they belong to such or such a determinate category of beings.

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi, says an old Latin saw. The same rules of justice do not apply to beings springing from categories which are too widely separated. Thus it is that the formula “to each according to his rank” differs from the other formulas in that, instead of being universalist, it divides men into various categories which will be treated differently.’

The problem here is that according to this principle of justice, any policy that aims to improve social mobility or promote equality of opportunity automatically becomes an injustice. Similarly, according to the principle ‘to each according to their race’ any policy aimed at promoting equal rights, such as the civil rights legislation, is by definition an injustice.

It seems to me that this is an unhelpful way of thinking about injustice. Just because a policy may not live up to one’s conception of justice doesn’t automatically make it an injustice. This is the problem with Robert Nozick’s (1974, 169) famous claim that ‘taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor’

1.2   STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS

The social injustice issue happens in social life such in society. It is discussed too on literary area such as Sociology. Sociology itself means the study that deals with human’s life in the society. Most times, the leaders are at fault cause they keep one rule and advices in the church but they’ll turn to do the opposite of what they have said, in the case of most pastors preaching against immorality but they are actively involved in it; thereby presenting themselves to be “holy” but they are actually doing injustice in the society with whoever they are doing with. Finally, several researches has been carried out on the Church’s role in social justice but not even a single research has been carried out on social injustice in the church, case study of church of Christ in nation cocin lcc Ikorodu.

1.3   AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

        The main aim of the study is to examine social injustice in the church. Other specific objectives of the study include;

1. to determine the causative factors of social injustice in church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu.
2. to determine the effect of social injustice on the church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu.
3. to determine the extent to which social injustice affects the church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu.
4. to proffer possible solutions to the problems.

1.4   RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the causative factors of social injustice in church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu?
2. What is the effect of social injustice in the church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu?
3. What is the extent to which social injustice affects the church of Christ in nation cocin lcc, Ikorodu?
4. What are possible solutions to the problems?

1.5   STATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

HO:   Social injustice has no significant effect on the church of Christ.

HI:    Social injustice has significant effect on the church of Christ.

1.6   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

        The study on social injustice in the church will be of immense benefit to the entire church of Christ in nations COCIN LCC Ikorodu in the sense that it will educate those in leadership positions in church the likes of Pastors, departmental presidents, ushers etc. to set good examples to others by preaching and also doing what is being preached cause by so doing social injustice could be eradicated and non Christians will not have any reason to talk badly about the church. Finally, the study will contribute to the body of existing literature and knowledge to this field of study and basis for further research.

1.7   SCOPE OF THE STUDY

        The study on social injustice in the church is limited to church of Christ in nations COCIN LCC Ikorodu.

1.8   LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1.9   DEFINITION OF TERMS

Social      Relating to society or its organization.

Injustice A situation in which people are treated very unfairly and not given their rights

Church    Is a building used for Christian religious activities, particularly for Christian worship services.