I was banned moments ago from SRSdiscussion for what I wrote below. As a result, I can't make any new posts until, well, I don't really know, but "my posts haven't been doing very well recently" so I'm not allowed to post according to reddit's algorithms. Anyway, here goes:

"Justice" pertains to morality. A society that is just is analogous to a person who is moral. That is to say just like there are rules and perhaps even laws by which a person lives, a just society is one in which there are rules and laws that pertain to moral behavior. It's a matter of scope, but in both cases, appropriate behavior is legislated. For individuals, it's commanded by "commandments" or "principles". In society, it's commanded from on high (the state), and it is enforced through the coercive mechanisms of the state or whatever institution.

"Ethics" conversely are not institutionalized. They do not demand anything of individuals nor are they coercive. In guiding one's own life, they pertain to those patterns, norms, and behaviors that are conducive to "the good life" (not "the moral life" or "the just life"). What this means is that "ethics" are fundamentally social. I'll give an example: "business law" pertains to the business measures established by institutions that ensure justice. To violate those laws in to generate grounds for censure. However, "business ethics" pertains to ethical practices and measures that people ought to freely adhere to in their own endeavors. The consequence of not adhering to ethical principles should not be legal action unless adhering to unethical principles garners injustice. Ostracism and criticism are the appropriate response to people adhering to unethical practices. Punishments from the state are the appropriate response to people adhering to unjust principles (or disregarding justice). The difference between a "just" society and an "ethical" one is important. Or rather, the "just" elements of a society must be separated from the "ethical" elements, on my view. Hence my question: are you all really after "justice"? Or do you just want a society in which all people take the social issues you take seriously equally seriously? Do you want a society in which "rape jokes" are outlawed, or one in which all people know enough about the seriousness of rape to not joke about it? Think about it this way: lots of SJW critics say things like "feminism had a point in the 70s and 80s, but now there are laws and safeguards that eliminate most if not all of the institutional biases and problems that were around back then. What are you complaining about still?" Now in a very important sense, the sense of "justice", they're right. Not 100%, since there are still institutional discrepancies, but still we've made serious progress in terms of justice. Where we haven't made serious progress is in changing general opinions about race and gender. Those horrible opinions are very much with us, and they, especially in an age where we have so much more access to them via the internet, are our biggest problems today. The institutions themselves on paper pass the "justice test" in most cases, but the people involved in those institutions certainly fail the "ethics test" in far too many cases. So this is my question to "social justice warriors". I have no problem if people want to raise social awareness about widely held individual biases that amalgamate and express themselves in the public sphere (men hiring and giving promotions to other men, cops racially profiling minorities, violence against transgender persons, etc.). Where I get nervous is when people say that we ought to legislate ethics. To me, this seems to be a fundamental confusion of goals. It's a conflation of institutional goals with individual goals. You can't "legislate away" bigotry by banning it. This is exactly what the SJW community gets so much flack for (e.g., the SJW mod cabals censoring people). If you want people to change, then convince them that they should, not make it so they have to. It's illegal to hire men over women, all other things equal. It's illegal to discriminate based on race, sexual preference, or gender. The "justice" is there. What isn't there is the social consciousness, and you can't legislate that.

i think that speaks to your point. It's certainly what I find wrong with the movement considering THEY LEGISLATED ME OUT OF THEIR DISCUSSION FOR USING THE TERM SJW UNIRONICALLY.