As an American, and a human service professional, my primary job is to address the hypocrisy and moral corruption and confliction of those individuals and systems who solely convey America’s constitutional banner, but neglects its moral practicality. Americans think that by making everyone equal, constitutively and legislatively, we would effortlessly develop a moral society. Morality assumes that people have advantages over others such physical wellness, as skin-pigmentation, sexual identification, autonomy from mental illness and it dictates that we do not take advantage of those who are disadvantaged. Systems and society at large should not use our differences to justify the unjustifiable: inhumanly treatment and exclusion of other humans.
Artificial equality would be the result of this statement by Madison, “ Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”(Federalist 17) Rousseau believed strongly in free choice and in the Federalist Papers it is shown that it is very difficult to establish a government that is stable and will not threaten the liberties of the people. Overall Rousseau believed that the people should be left to create their own natural equality and inequality through their use of liberty while the Federalist Papers focused on how the government could accomplish the same task. The motives were similar yet their plans to create this ideal society
Today, the debate that perplexes society is whether collectivism provides answer for simplicity amongst a civilization. True collectivists believe in altruism, and these altruists believe the only way to bring a society together is by destroying individualism. Democracies believe that individualists remain the only way to keep society 's bonds intact. The stories “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut and Anthem by Ayn Rand draws the line between the so-called perfect utopia versus an imperfect dystopia. One can see there are many similarities between “Harrison Bergeron” and Anthem.
My Values of Equality Milton Friedman, an American economist, in his article “Created Equal”, points out his concept about “Created Equal”. Friedman discusses the different ways that humans are considered to be equal, and then he declares three specific categories for human equality: equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Friedman argues that the first equality is the Founders’ use, the second equality is compatible with liberty, and the third equality is socialism. Equality is such a beautiful word that everyone should appreciate, and Friedman claims his points about its concept from his own comprehension. I really respect Friedman’s points about equality; however, there is something critical about equality which
Liberals like to say, ‘my body, my choice,’ and conservatives claim to favor free markets, but true self-ownership would include the right to sell one 's body parts, and genuine free enterprise would imply a market in human organs. In any event, studies show that this has become a matter of life and death.” (452) This would be considered a hasty generalization in logical fallacy terms. He has reached an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. Research shows that Gregory himself, is a liberal. Although Gregory is a liberal, he is saying that all liberals think the way he thinks.
In our modern day society, we live in a world in which equity is very important for us to achieve as citizens. Equity can be understood as recognizing that society needs differences in order to be successful. As we are humans, each one of us will be different from everyone else, and it is this difference that adds creativity and color to the world. However, in Kurt Vonnegut 's story "Harrison Bergeron", they live in a future world in which everyone is equal. A society in which the government enforced equality so much that they go to extreme measures to force everyone to be as equal as they possibly can be.
Political liberalism is thought to have two central values -- autonomy and equality, both essential to reinforcing the value of the individual in society. To add on, tolerance is generally thought to go hand in hand with equality. The idea is that in order for every individual to have equal civil liberties and be treated as political equals, others that strongly disagree with their beliefs or lifestyles must at least be tolerant of them. However, the idea of tolerance in itself seems paradoxical. As philosopher Bernard Williams points out in his essay, Toleration: An Impossible Virtue, the biggest puzzle concerning toleration is that “tolerance...is required only for the intolerable” (18).
In their socio-economic book, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, award winning Kate Pickett and partner Richard Wilkinson present a great focus on inequality, its effects and ways to make society a more equal one. With many data research methods and supporting data used, The Spirit Level reminds us that we live in a world of inequality and are oblivious to what it causes. Linking psychological aspects of humanity, the authors cause the readers to realise the harsh reality of the world we live in and how society’s thinking is shaped around the concept of consumerism and status competition. The beginning of the book captivates the reader by introducing statistics of different countries, showing how the national income level per person has an impact on life expectancy and happiness. Along with this information, a guide on how to read the graphs has also been included.
Harrison Bergeron – Equality The idea of equality throughout Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr, is what makes the story so interesting. Equality is typically talked about as a treatment, and in this short story, were able to see that completely treating people as an equal will away be a problem. Weather it’s a lack of, or too much equality. Perfect equality’s is practically impossible. Someone will always posses stronger or better characteristics then someone else does, simply because people don’t all excel in the same areas.
is the second necessary condition of a just procedure. The existences of such procedures are a matter of historical contingency. (Hampshire, 2000, p.17, p.27). All humans are subject to the same moral restrictions and that only one conception of the good is finally acceptable. Fairness and justice in procedures are only virtues that can reasonably be considered as setting norms to be universally respected.
Perhaps the most famous Federalist paper, Federalist 10, starts off by saying that one of the biggest arguments that favors the Constitution is that it creates a government suited to minimize the harm caused by factions. Faction, in this case, is defined as a group of people whether a minority or majority based on class, race, and profession that all share a common interest. It was inevitable that factions would occur and perhaps the defining characteristic was the unequal distribution of property. This would ultimately lead the poor without property to become the majority in a “tyranny of the masses.” Madison believed that there were two solutions in preventing majority factions, 1) Remover the causes, and 2) Control the effects. There were
. it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (10). This leads into another theory of Mills that supports my conclusions, that of The Limits of Liberty for other regarding actions. Mills believed that society had the right to limit freedoms of the individual to engage in behaviors that affected those not engaging in the behaviors. This idea is articulated later in “On Liberty” when mill states that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Socialists believe that tremendous inequality results from the functions of society, not the faults of individuals. To alleviate societal disadvantages, socialists believe the state should be the sole power in determining the distribution of goods and services. Grinnell College should centralize organizational power to move toward socialism. Under socialism, Grinnell would take in and distribute only as many resources as students need. The college would charge a standard tuition to pay only for the institution’s necessities.
Silver suggest that the U.S should have fair terms for people who at least attempt to assist others in need as best as possible. In addition, the people emotions mostly triggers a person’s senses into doing helping others ethically indirectly or directly. If the United States did establish ethically responsibility as a law then there would be many advantages and disadvantages. The relationship between a nation’s legal system helps people realize that there are governments order and nothing is given in return of committing an an act that is ethically
Perhaps he would point to a second dictionary definition of “democracy,” “an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.” That sounds good, but reasonable people have long argued about the meaning of “treating people equally.” Is equality “equal protection of the law” or is it equalizing income levels, or is it something in between? What “equality” would Americans accept, given our history of respect for private property and distrust of governmental overreaching? Would Americans accept the equalizing measures adopted by the other democratic countries to which Mr. Curran alludes? Do these other countries reject capitalism and