It seems that only superficial assumptions are visible on this subject, and they are in error. There is a need to understand the underlying abstract principles, before social justice can be correct.

For example, a central theme used to be "power to the people". There is no constructive way to use power. Trading one bunch of corrupters for another is not a fix.

Then there is "distributive justice". Supposedly, redistributing property is the fix. Property is worthless without constructivity. Africans have highly valuable resources, but they cannot develop them due to extreme oppression. It shows that resources are not enough.

To create order out of this chaos, a trite statement is a good starting point, but much explaining is needed. The first requirement of social justice is that people have a right to live. Conservatives talk about "right to life," but they only apply it to fetuses, not people living in poverty.

Why do people have a right to live? It's almost impossible to define philosophically what a right is. But if people don't have a right to live, someone is perpetrating sin against them, and perpetrators always destroy themselves by creating a conflict with justice.

In material life, it is easier to describe why people have a right to live. Material life was not created by humans, and therefore, everyone has a right to it. Atheists think otherwise, since the "Big Bang" supposedly created life instead of God, and people supposedly have a right to whatever they can take.

The concept of human laws (government) complicates the subject, because such laws cannot be perfect, though they are necessary. It is necessary to create a governmental right to own property. No social order can exist without the right to ownership. But such human laws are limited and imperfect. This means corrective measures must exist to assure that the right to life is sustained. Notice that the prevailing argument is that no corrective measures are necessary. The rich and powerful supposedly have a right to at least ignore the inherent victims of their exploits. In fact, social Darwinism says no one must help the victims, or the misfits will prevail. Welfare is destroyed on the basis of that assumption.

When it is recognized that there are inherent victims to wealth and power, the usual assumption is that redistribution should correct it. The problem with that claim is that social justice requires infinite corrections, while redistribution does nothing for most of the subject. For example, in Zimbabwe, land was taken from whites and given to blacks, and it destroyed the agriculture, because the blacks didn't know what to do with the land or didn't have the means or motives to use it properly. It shows that redistribution is more likely to create problems than solve them.

Christ described the most basic elements of justice in terms of meeting basic needs, such as housing, food and health (Mat 25:31-46). Meeting needs is more than redistribution.

But there is something even more basic to social justice. Only the individual, or victim of injustice, can determine what his needs are. This point is demonstrated by homeless shelters and all similar do-gooding. Homeless shelters are not fit for animals. They don't meet the needs for housing or any other needs. It shows that imposing a solution onto someone is not social justice. If people cannot determine for themselves what the answers are to their problems, it isn't justice.

This is why Christ described justice in terms of helping. Helping does not mean imposing. When basic needs are met, there is no conflict between what the victims want and the help they get. The victims of injustice must have the means to solve their problems, before it is social justice.

There are three billion people shoved into the gutters and not allowed to solve their problems due to every imaginable motive of sin including jealousy, greed, domination, exploitation and hate. The other three billion have that sin on their souls. They don't have a right to destroy three billion people for any reason.