Final answer:
The statement questions the alignment of societal norms with actual justice, highlighting that fairness in society's eyes is not always equitable. Philosophical theories like Rawls' Theory of Justice, Plato's view on social harmony, and Critical Race Theory provide various angles on understanding justice, underscoring social, cultural, and power dynamics influences.
Step-by-step explanation:
Justice:
The statement "the norms and notions of what just is, isn't always justice" challenges the idea that what is typically accepted as fair or right does not necessarily equate to true justice. In other words, societal norms can sometimes conflict with the concept of justice. This relates to various philosophical perspectives on what constitutes justice and fairness.
For example, Plato's conception of justice involves everyone playing their role in society for social harmony, whereas Rawls' Theory of Justice suggests principles of fairness that try to balance freedom and social welfare. Carol Gilligan's approach criticizes the justice perspective as the sole viewpoint and recognizes different socialization processes influencing our understanding of justice. Moreover, Critical Race Theory contends that justice can be compromised by systemic biases, emphasizing power dynamics over objective truths.
Normative Relativism, as theorized by Thane Doss, further implies that morality and ethics—aspects central to justice—are constructs of social conventions, influenced by culture and context. Thus, the original statement reflects the multifaceted and debatable nature of what is just, suggesting that societal standards are not an absolute measure of justice.