Diversity is about recognising differences and valuing the differences. It consist of visible and none visible factors which include the characteristics of a person such as their background, culture personality. In addition to the characteristics that are protected under the discrimination legislation in terms of race, disability, gender, religion, sexual orientation and age by recognising and understanding that everyone has the right to be treated as a individual and encouraging individuals to express their individuality freely if they wish everyone who is cared for in your setting will feel valued as a individual. Equality is about creating a fairer society where everyone can participate and has the opportunity to fulfil their potential this is stated in the department of health 2004. Equality also means being equal no matter what you race, gender, age, disability, religion, cultural differences and sexual orientation.
Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
Nielsen states ”I shall argue…that autonomy cannot be widespread or secure in a society which is not egalitarian: where, that is, equality is not also a fundamental value which has an operative role within the society” (Munson 708). This is to mean, as reconstructed above, that for a society to be autonomous (in that its citizens are “capable of self-direction” (708)) it must also be egalitarian. The first premise of Nielsen’s argument relies on the idea of “moral equality,” which is to mean, as Nielsen says, “the life of everyone matters and matters equally“ (708). From this definition, I propose that the first premise is a self-evident claim. Nielsen later states, “Liberty cannot flourish without something approaching this equality of condition, and people without autonomous lives will surely live impoverished lives….In fine, a commitment to achieving equality of condition, far from undermining liberty
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. He basically employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed and that individuals had an essential right to life, liberty and property. As we mentioned in class, Thomas Hobbes was the one who started the theory of social contract and developed it elaborately arguing for unlimited authority in a ruler. The intellectual journey of liberalism kept going beyond John Locke with the Enlightenment, a period in the 18th century that shows intellectual penetration that questioned old traditions and influenced monarchies. Some other documents asserting individual rights include 1689 the English Bill of Rights, 1789 the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen and 1791 the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that all are written precursors to today’s human rights documents.
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.
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract
Humanism places an emphasis on the assumption that all humans are inherently good in nature and possess free will. In general, humans are seen as creative beings that hold an inner desire to better themselves as well
Natural Moral Law is a theory that is explained by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It states that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. It was originated in the philosophy of Aristotle and then developed by Aquinas. Natural Law is an absolute theory of ethics but it is not rooted in duty but in our human nature and our search for genuine happiness and fulfilment. Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose.
Deontology is the study of duty. “The theory of deontology states that we are morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles/rules regardless of the outcome.” On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. (Plato). Kant’s ethical theories revolve around personal duty to make one’s actions produce a moral value and respect for other people. In the business and stakeholders context, Kant’s principle of respect for persons asserts that every human being is entitled to be treated not merely as a means to the achievement of the efforts of others, but as a being valuable in his or her own right; that each person is entitled to be respected as an end in himself or herself.
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.