Here in Israel we talk alot about social justice and equallity for all in the same sentence. Is it really true to combine these two together? Are they the same? Do they demand the same thing?
Let's look in the dictionary.
Equality - the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
Equal to what task? Some are more equal than others. We should be treated equally under the law. I guess that is justice.
The differences seem nit-picky at best. Sure they each have equal access to one wooden box but one of the kids doesn't have equal access to seeing the game, so the definition of equality could be change from how many boxes one has to refer to whether or not everyone has an equal ability to see the game and it would still fit under the term equality.
I can see what the poster is trying to say though and I agree, some people need more than others. It's irrelevant for the tall guy if the law in this case is to hand out one box per citizen because he can see without one. In that case seeking justice might be more relevant because its easier to communicate what you're after if you want what is just. Like I said though, re-define the parameters of equality and its still equality. In that way justice is almost like a sub-division of equality in that its a specific kind of equality. Really, if anything, its the other way around, but for this specific discussion that works.
Nice picture by the way. However, I don't think people think of equality in the way it's depicted in the picture. It might just come down to semantics. Perhaps equity is a better word, but that's still problematic. It really has to do what you're considering. Taking the analogy provided in the picture, what should guaranteed to be equal? Should it be the height of the boxes people get to stand on? Or should it be the capacity to have an untrammeled panoramic view of the field? I think, when most people think of equality, they think of the later, in which case, it would be synonymous with justice as you seem to interpret the word. Having said that though, it will be the case, that people (be it politicians, businesses, communities for what have you) will exploit the potential ambiguity here, to set up false dilemmas to serve their own interests (by effectively arguing against equality/justice by speaking of how it undermines equality). I feel like people will exploit whatever rhetorical devices they have to get their way, be it also through appeals to ethos or pathos. Leaving people discombobulated through the use of semantic loopholes is sadly nothing new. I guess I would just say, that I'd like to imagine that the contradiction you posit here is false and should be a non-issue. But, I know that this is of relevance given the kind of dialogue and discourse we have in the world, in which case, this is only one instantiation of a general principle of rhetorical argumentation at play. I wish people weren't so easily obfuscated, by just using different words for the same thing, or the same word for two different things. As a language too, English maybe doesn't help much either. They're a few direct contranyms as well, like, does one sanction the sanctions? In one sense, the word mean's you're trying to restrict something, in the other sense, you're permitting something. So yeah...
I don't think that social justice and equality are equal at all. That said, I think they can both be created by similar means and can thus be talked about in the same sense. I agree with your picture as a definition of both equality and social justice. That said, I think equality applies in certain situations and social justice in others. I don't think they're mutually exclusive ideals for social change in a society and that each situation has to be examined for possible applications of both equality and social justice.
Equality is a universal principle, justice is subjective.