Equality is a concept quite equivocal, form the Latin aequalitas "equal" , it can be characterized as what is equivalent , which is no different either quantitatively or qualitatively , we need to distinguish equal rights and social equality. This is why, in practice, egalitarian demand is often criticized for hurting individual freedom to the extent that characterized by the absence of difference, it would lead to uniformity. Consequently, does the claim of equal threat the freedom? However, we will dedicate ourselves to distinguish between no difference and lack of identity, because if equality is reflected in the lack of difference , it is not the lack of identity , so we can refute the argument of equality binds to the uniformity. Thus, the demand for equality is not necessarily antagonistic to that of freedom.
Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphsyical This article by John Rawls discusses the theory of justice which was presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice.” Rawls espouses the concept that justice should be devoid of controversial philosophical and religious doctrines, and instead be understood as political, or actually practical in nature. He further discusses two fundamental principles which should guide this thought process, specifically, that each individual has equal access to basic rights or liberties, and that social and economic inequalities must be attached to offices and positions that provide the greatest benefits for those most disadvantaged. Rawls goes into great detail to explain that his theory of justice is designed, not to focus on the metaphysical or epistemological, but rather as a structure for informed and willing political agreement between citizens who are viewed equally as being free. He avoids the attendant issues that may be considered philosophical, moral or religious, by using the argument that there would be no way to resolve them politically. Rawls also speaks to the issues of social cooperation, which is governed by publically recognized rules that once again, focus on political practicability and the rational advantages that would extend from this cooperation.
Human rights are the fundamental rights that humans have by the fact of being human, and that neither created nor can be abrogated by any government. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not just emerge easily from a vacuum and it would be the final declaration aimed at securing certain rights for citizens in nation-states. What the declaration includes is traced back to Magna Carta (1215). Those that came after have emerged as strategic responses to social and political alteration. John Locke, who is often credited as the father of human rights and liberalism, maintained that humans were free and equal, and that the ideal society was based on a social contract between the humans and those who governed.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
However, how can a society be democratic without being majoritarian? How is a dictated policy not mandated? At what point do an individual’s needs outweigh the needs of the many. Communitarian views also hold to the beliefs that ‘exclusive pursuits of private interests’ is destructive to and erodes the experiment called democratic self-government. Further it contends that individual rights cannot remain intact without a communitarian perspective; that human dignity and the social dimension are recognized equally.
Rawls’ Principles of Justice “Justice is the virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”(Rawls, p. 581). John Rawls’ book, A Theory of Justice, is an in-depth analysis and interpretation of social justice. Rawls presents and discusses two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the equality principle, which are the basis of his theory on justice. Rawls’ first principle of justice states “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”(Rawls, p. 586). This principle is basically asserting that fundamental liberties come first over anything concerning justice.
Although they endorse idea of self-determination, does not mean they entitle nations to treat people however they choose. Rights of individuals are above that of claims of national sovereignty. Liberal internationalism is characterised by the desire for nations to conform to a higher morality embodied in the doctrine of human rights. As these rights are universally applicable and lay down minimum existence for humans as well as abiding and constituting the rules of international law. This belief has led to the creation of documents such as UN Declaration, employing support from international institutions of law (International Court of
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
The obligation of a state to “take steps” is an immediate obligation. The notion of progressive realization of rights does not justify a state’s apathy for the reason that a state has not attained a certain level of economic development. Other immediate obligations of a state are the prohibition of taking any retrogressive step to limit a right, to prevent discrimination in the enjoyment of a social and economic rights and also duty to prioritize the most vulnerable in the realization of their