I, myself, have always had a very philosophical view of the term justice. In reality, I have more of distributive lens that I view it through. This I believe more aligns with social justice. Social justice follows a more egalitarian movement that focuses on 1) equality for all groups across the board and 2) balancing out matters of wealth financially, physically, socially, etc.
As Begum describes it, justice should and must be viewed as right as opposed to a form of charity. Especially in our Western culture, we see social justice as a way to help celebrate in an almost Christ-like fashion those who have been marginalized. Instead of celebrating the abilities and contributions of others, we view their shortcomings as things that must make them some easily observable and discriminated. There are even a lot of ways that social justice movements that try to serve as a voice for the disenfranchised can go as the same zoo animal effect that people often view.
For instance, a current social movement in the United States is “23 Reasons” which is used to signify that women, on average, make 23 cents less than men per dollar. The 23 Reasons campaign is there to show the twenty-three reasons why women are great and deserve as much as men. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree, but why do women need twenty-three reasons? Why not just one? I feel like these are some of the questions that need to be asked. How can we advocate for social justice without grotesquely gratifying the marginalized?