Here a quick breakdown of three categories freedoms, rights and equality, they are all important, the discussion is what's (more important).
FREEDOMS
personal freedoms: freedom of speech, private property, inheritance, etc
social freedoms: religious freedom, freedom of political assembly (generally it means a freedom of association),
RIGHTS
natural rights: are "natural" in the sense of "not man-made", one owns them because one belongs in the HOMO SAPIENS club. therefore, they are universal. they apply to all people, and do not depend from the laws of any specific society. they are inherent.
absolute right: an absolute right is the strongest right, which cannot be overridden by any other types of considerations (e.g., utility or expedience) that do not involve rights.
prima facie rights: it means that at first sight, the right appears applicable but upon closer scrutiny, we may decide that other considerations outweigh it.
legal rights: these are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures 8the right to vote, a felon may not enjoy that right).
negative rights: these are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. another way of looking at it is that negative rights are natural. Lockean proviso of rights: right to freedom, private property and pursuit of happiness.
positive right: is an entitlement ("one is entitled to") a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. example: welfare rights. see that positive rights are rights one consents in others having. one is not "born with them".
a difference between negative and positive rights is that positive rights are not inherent.
political rights: they protect individuals' freedoms from infringement by governments, social organizations, and other private individuals. they include peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety. they include: protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability. they also include negative rights such as freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.
from the previous definition of prolitical rights, one infers the rights to equal opportunity.
right to equal opportunity: is a state of fairness in society (in education or employment or housing) where people are treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.
example: take a person applying for a job. 1- her chances should be based solely on her qualifications. she should not be discriminated against because of position, connections, religion, sex, ethnicity, race, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
making a distinction based on anything other than her qualifications would amount to denying others of equal opportunity.
autonomy = freedom/self-beliefs
EQUALITY: "TREAT EQUALS EQUALLY & UNEQUAL UNEQUALLY"
E1 the principle of opportunities: we all SHOULD have the same right to opportunities, regardless of our differences (even if one may end with unequal results).
E2 equality of outcomes: people should have approximately the same material wealth and income (now it has been extended to identity politics).
COUNTERS:
1- Striving for equal outcomes generally backfires, since normalizing the outcomes may require a degree of discrimination
between groups to achieve the desired outcome. example: giving positions, grants, admissions in universities, etc, to people not because of merit. In fact, policies that seek equality of outcomes often require a
deviation from the strict application of meritocracy and equality for all citizens.
2- If I have reasons to believe that my autonomy is being squashed at the expense of someone else, both of us having had the same equality of opportunities, I'd feel that I've been treated unfairly (imagine I come up with a grading method that averages the Ds to a general "C" at the expense of the Bs and As). In this case the principle of equality violates a principle of fairness.
Look above at the intersection of freedoms and rights: which of the spheres is more important?
The ideal situation is seems to be to keep them in balance. But recently there are ideological slants. Libertarians prefer freedom, socialists prefer equality. Liberals are kind of in the middle (favoring both).
Now, there are problems with both Libertarianism and Socialism Why? Socialism is idea of distributing wealth (and the engine of communism) has failed.
Yet, there are socialist policies of various degrees, for example, medicare and medicaid, TANF, and foodstamps, and plan 8 housing, in the US or the much touted programs of Universal Health in Denmark, Sweden, Norway. However it's a mistake to assume that these northern countries are socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with socialist policies.
As per Libertarianism, the idea of the minimal state presents problems for increasingly bigger nations with heterogeneous populations.
It seems a negotiation of moderate liberalism is the best option with an emphasis on safeguarding personal freedoms while keeping economic inequalities at bay.
2- If I have reasons to believe that my autonomy is being squashed at the expense of someone else, both of us having had the same equality of opportunities, I'd feel that I've been treated unfairly (imagine I come up with a grading method that averages the Ds to a general "C" at the expense of the Bs and As). In this case the principle of equality violates a principle of fairness.
Look above at the intersection of freedoms and rights: which of the spheres is more important?
The ideal situation is seems to be to keep them in balance. But recently there are ideological slants. Libertarians prefer freedom, socialists prefer equality. Liberals are kind of in the middle (favoring both).
Now, there are problems with both Libertarianism and Socialism Why? Socialism is idea of distributing wealth (and the engine of communism) has failed.
Yet, there are socialist policies of various degrees, for example, medicare and medicaid, TANF, and foodstamps, and plan 8 housing, in the US or the much touted programs of Universal Health in Denmark, Sweden, Norway. However it's a mistake to assume that these northern countries are socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with socialist policies.
As per Libertarianism, the idea of the minimal state presents problems for increasingly bigger nations with heterogeneous populations.
It seems a negotiation of moderate liberalism is the best option with an emphasis on safeguarding personal freedoms while keeping economic inequalities at bay.
No comments:
Post a Comment