Comparison Between Individual and Group Rights - Case Study Example

Running Head: COMPARISON BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP RIGHTS Comparison Between Individual And Group Rights [Name Of Student] [Name Of Institution] Comparison Between Individual And Group Rights Introduction Rights relate to the ethical duties and responsibilities that people have towards each other. More particularly, they pertain to a district of independence inside which people are free to make choices without intrusion by outsiders. According to this definition rights, then, serve as moral limitations or rather obligations on the acts of other people. If we were all enclosed in our own world and if there was never any need of interaction between people, then there was no need of any rights, because in such a scenario nobody would interfere with anyone. Lest this is not possible! We live in a world where we need others. Man is a social animal and human survival depends upon interaction. Therefore rights exist as people mingle with each other in search of their own welfare. In this paper I will compare and contrast the ideas of Rawls and Taylor in context of their views on individual and group rights, and also see where these two great thinkers relate, differ and which one is more persuasive. John Rawls' Theory Of Justice John Rawls was no doubt, one of the most well-known and valued political philosopher of the current age. His philosophical reputation came from his two main books: "A Theory of Justice" "Political Liberalism”. As far as the Theory of justice is concerned, it contains two main thoughts. First about ‘individual liberty’ and second ‘favor the bottom’ principle, which according to Rawls was the best measure to rationalize the concept of a welfare state (Benhabib, 2002, 59). For a very long time liberal theories have emphasized that in a democratic society the diversity of cultures can be adjusted best only through liberal tools that is through individual rights. In the course of comparison of this paper, I will analyze the reasons why Rawls was unable to bring his two elements together. Taylor’s Group Rights Taylor insists on group rights, According to him the purpose of group rights in the longer run is nothing but to serve individual interests. As claimed by Rawls that group rights conflict with the underlying principle of neutrality. Taylor strongly emphasizes that this claim is baseless as group rights remove the cultural differences that exist between masses and so group rights is an ambassador of principle of neutrality. He further arguments that group rights should be classified as true human rights as they respect the basic human rights both morally and fundamentally. Group rights serve as an anchor for cultural values that are essential for the freedom of any individual that seeks an identity. It also highlights that group rights is the only tool that can effectively deal with national minority groups or that of immigrant and to measure the extent till which any such rights should benefit any illiberal community (Eide, Krause, Rosas 2003, 33). Involvement, not intrusion, should here be the steering motto if group rights are to fulfill the liberal promise. Group Rights vs. Individual Rights Nation building is a term that refers to integration of masses at nation-level. This implies that the different ethnic, cultural and religious crowds that discover themselves existing within pre-set boundaries of a globally renowned state are expected to part with their joint identity in order to take up the standards of the leading or majority group. It is a normal observation that the majority group is the one that is in possession of political power so they are at liberty to form their own cultural identities. Moreover it then becomes obligatory on all other small groups to adhere this set culture even if that comes at the expense of attrition of any minority community’s cultural values. Normally people think that the prime objective of Rawls’ theory of justice was to put individual rights ahead of the collective good, but it is not true. Rawls put forward some utilitarian terms that specified individual rights above the general social utility. It is observed that cumulative fundamental utility is the ultimate end of all ethical and political acts (Green , 2005,3). But what overrides individuals cannot serve as a purpose for common good. Common good is a term that should encompass all, not merely a majority of the society. Even if some percent of the public is not benefiting then it cannot be termed as common good. Rawls was a staunch believer of the fact that all of us possess basic rights, which should not be surrendered in the name of utility. This is what Rawls keep on repeating throughout the text of his theory of justice. However if we compare the thoughts of the two great thinkers, the first thing that strikes is that there is a contradiction in Rawls own beliefs. On one hand he supports rights for all, which are not to be overshadowed by any thing at all and on the other he projects a "favor-the-bottom principle,” A problem springs here. It explains that the upper lot of the society should take care of those at the bottom, make necessities of life available to them so that a ‘maximin’ atmosphere can exist. Over here a query arises that who will these people be, who will provide the lower lot of the society with things they require for betterment. The answer is quite simple: It can only be the affluent upper class. Taylor had criticized this that the gifted and active are to be utilized as resources to provide common well being for all. In addition to this, the concept of individual rights, which Rawls considered to be the midpoint between out-and-out democratic reorganization and out-and-out capitalism libertarianism, and that indeed is his tool of the Veil of Ignorance that helped accomplish this. But critically analyzing the second belief is clearly conflicting with the initial one as it states, no matter how a person infers it. If we want to support the worst-off maximally, it can only be done if we target to make them as affluent as the rest of the society but practically speaking it isn’t possible, ever, to make the "bottom" public improved off without affecting the upper lot. Dreaming of a utopia, if we have one ever, where all people consider themselves rich and are willing to help the less blessed at the expense of their own well being, then this principle can hold true(Habermas, 2004, 106). But this is really not what Rawls wanted to project as assumed by hi followers. The purpose was to form a welfare state and not to signify the rich or the poor, or to make it worse that a welfare state makes it essential, against the will, on the tax paying people to help the lower class at the expense of their own well being. Analyzing Rawls’ theory of justice further, another fact surfaces that the two principles can only be read in two ways. Either Rawls stresses on lexical precedence, which in other words imply that the second principle is absurd as it can only be put into practice at the stake of the first one, which makes the first one invalid! On the other hand, Rawls urges about maximin and the freedom be ruined which again makes the first statement baseless as it will result in classless socialism, not just with the mixed economy but for all as he thinks to have explained. After a thorough discussion one thing is evident that both the practices can’t be implemented simultaneously as one negates the other. This leads to the Veil of Ignorance. But again we see issues here. Rawls unwraps "A Theory of Justice" with the declaration that he recognizes the normal economic origin of human sensible rationality(Naverson, 2003, 84). But then he suggests that societal principles have to be discussed in the light of the Veil of Ignorance. This leads us to another very important query that will the people in the real world scenario ever follow something that is just bestowed upon them from behind a veil. An agreement in the real world involves people not just some idealization of non-existent entities. Rawls offers a bare compromise in all principles and it is predicted by the liberals that the effect of this would be in the form of Locke’s or Hobbes' First Law of Nature (Naverson, 2003, 91-4). Contrary to Rawls principles, the right of a group to carry on according to their own beliefs is the most deep-seated. Only if groupings are allowed to continue can they hope to declare claims and avoid the devastation of their civilizing, linguistic and spiritual uniqueness as peoples. If the State breaks up a crowd or averts expression of its individuality, the group may be damaged. A group that is smaller than the rest of the people that makes up the State’s population comes in a non-dominant situation, whose constituents, being nationals of the ethnics and values set by the state conflicting from those of the rest of the populace and illustrate, if only completely, a logic of commonality, aimed at protecting their traditions, customs, faith or speech (Stavenhagen, 2002, 65). Although it often happens that the group rights of minorities are subjected to some boundaries, which is entirely at the judgment of the state, maybe for the defense of public order, it is vital to meet the severe criterion necessary to inflict these restrictions on spiritual and civilizing freedom that is “compulsory in a democratic civilization.” (Stavenhagen, 2002, 71) The expressions “public shelter, order and morals” are massively flexible and have been used “as an alleged motive for illogically helping majority values” that have confirmed detrimental to minorities. ... right to culture should be inferred as “the right that an individual has to his own culture,” and not just to the “general” culture. General culture and an individual’s own culture is not necessarily the same. (Stavenhagen, 2002, 72) One cannot ignore the fact that minorities are carriers of sacred, intellectual and linguistic rights that are sovereign from the leading group of people and which cannot be distorted into a single common identity as that of the general populace. Every group is a creation of various historical backgrounds and its essential to respect this difference and allow it to flourish (Torbisco, Neus, 2006, 29). Regrettably, there emerges a mounting of Western noninterventionist states, an approach towards minority communities that is totally prejudiced and carries small understanding for cultural difference and is devoid of any respect for minority traditions that stray from the polity. I discuss here cultural rights because there is a close link between individual and group rights and it is a good example to precede the difference in the concepts of Rawls and Taylor. Cultural and religious individualities are chief indexes of involvement in public existence. “Private” cannot associate with “undisclosed” or exclusion from public scrutiny, nor does it essentially mean “solely personal.” The misinterpretation of a group’s uniqueness results in the fall of the diverse to the difference in the notion of good, thereby taking no notice of the inherent collective aspects of the argument (Galeotti,2004, 589,60) Multiculturalism is to be respected at all costs. All living communities should have common and equal rights. One of the basic problems is that contemporary political and communal theory still leans to fall into the erroneous model of an enclosed society that is a single isolated unit. Therefore, Taylor hunts for a practicable option in figuring up multicultural societies supplementary into self-contained elements -- logically and, if probable, location wise too. Until now the very organization of autonomy is meant to create misunderstandings that are inbuilt in the founding of borders and divisions. We continue to displace the problem rather than solve it and as a result have no been able to solve it as yet. In the international era, it is getting more and more tricky to refute the truth that we share a globe with restricted room and narrow resources, and we should discover to interrelate agreeably -- therefore a long-lasting significance for cosmopolitanism. The difficulty that we are met with a multicultural planet is not that there is an array of views, perceptions, and ethical positions, but that all these persist to survive individually and in a situation of anxiety. Taylor is thus correct when, analyzing the current situation he calls for an urgent need for a fusion of horizons. But we have to make out that our own civilization and viewpoints were by no means completely separate to start with, that our own individuality has all alongside been shaped and persists to figure in context and relation to others. The query is not whether societies can be allowed to influence or modify each other, but to a certain extent on what conditions. Taylor argues that even the Kantian liberalism failed to include the political recognition as supported by his declaration that liberalist thinking ignores the essentially dialogical nature of human life. According to Taylor, human individuality accomplishes completeness only in contact with the world and with what we call as noteworthy others. We comments that once we recognize our unique character only then will we be able to outline ourselves and come up with a genuine relation with self, which may be in contrast with the majority of the population in the society (Torbisco, Neus, 2006, 55). He strongly believes that, unlike Rawls, this identity of self is the only underlining factor behind politics of universalism where each living member is allowed the same level of rights and openings as every other. Liberalism's stresses on the similarity of all people, apart from race, group or even gender discriminations. His major case is the example of francophone Quebeckers who formed a marginal community in typically English-speaking Canada. In a place as Quebec, which is dominated by a French-speaking majority, the conservation of French culture ultimately gets priority and that is the perception of ‘common good’ of a majority of local governing bodies. “Political society is not neutral between those who value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual goal of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survival for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can't capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language for those who might choose it. This might be seen as the goal of some of the measures of federal bilingualism over the last twenty years. But it also involves making sure that there is a community of people here in the future that will want to avail itself of the opportunity to use the French language. Policies aimed at survival actively seek to create members of the community, for instance, in their assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-speakers. There is no way that these policies could be seen as just providing a facility to already existing people.” (Taylor, 1994, 84) Conclusion After much discussion on the interpretation of rights by the two great thinkers, we find that both were struggling for the same thing, which is the establishment of a welfare state. However the routes adopted by both to reach the common goal are quite different. On one hand Rawls believes in the development of ‘individual rights’ as the key to the goal whereas Taylor argues that on another model of liberalism, which according to him, embrace the idea of "group rights" in stability with individual rights of people and therefore energetically look for the joint identity-related aims of cultural and communal groups. I believe that all human beings are equal and regardless of the distinction on basis of minority or majority everyone should enjoy the same freedom. But inspite of this, I think that the theory that has been proposed by Rawls is a total failure, something that does not bear any weightage if held practically to implement liberalism. Specifying it in utilitarian terms, Rawls tried to put individual rights above the general social cause which I believe would lead to an ultimate end to all ethical and moral acts practiced by any state. I find Taylor to be more persuasive and logically sound in his arguments. Still the problem that Taylor has cannot be totally ignored. His proposal is not steady with the rest of his own framework that relates to identity-formation. He criticizes the tendency of liberalism to treat people as lonely citizens. The adding of group rights over individual rights however means that there are common goals that cannot e reduced to fit the definition of a ‘universal single man’. But the solution to this problem has also been given by Taylor (unlike Rawls who could not offer any explanation of his two contradictory principles), which lies in the treatment of social or cultural groups as a complete, and a relatively separate arrangement. References Benhabib, Seyla 2002: The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press. Eide, A.; Krause, C.; & Rosas, A. 2003: Cultural Rights and Universal Rights—Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (A Textbook). Galeotti, A.E. 2004: Citizenship and Equality: The Place for Toleration. Political Theory, 21(4): 585-605. Green, Marlow 2005:“Common Law, Property Rights & the Environment: Analysis of Historical Developments & a Model for the Future, Political Economy Research Center, 1995. Habermas, Jurgen 2004: "Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State" in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edited by Amy Gutmann. Princeton University Press. Naverson, John 2003 : John Rawls and the Veil of Incoherence, Political Economy Research Center, Vol 17, No 2 Stavenhagen, R. 2002: Individual vs. Collective Cultural Rights. Princeton University Press,pp. 63-78. Taylor, Charles 1994: "The Politics of Recognition" in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edited by Amy Gutmann. Princeton University Press. Torbisco Casals, Neus 2006: Group Rights as Human Rights: A Liberal Approach to Multiculturalism, Series: Law and Philosophy Library, Vol. 75, 263pages Read More