NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Individual Rights VS. Public Order Which of these spheres should be granted more devotion, the society or our own individual selves? Individualism became an issue when we as people began increasingly to demand more individual freedom and started to place more value on self-chosen individual achievement over mandated national achievement. Ever since these ideas were formed into governmental ideology, as John Locke first did, conceptions of individual and civil rights and duties have come into conflict in matters of public policy. (Campbell, p. 39) They have not so much conflicted on the grounds of their incompatibility. More frequently they have caused disputes as to where the respective boundaries of each should lie, and / or which should be given greater respect by people and their governments. Several issues arise whenever attempting to address the question at hand.
The Most important the issue is that of rights and duties. What are rights and duties? Are they related? What are the different kinds of rights that exist in a Liberal society, which ones are more important, and who should be given these rights?
What determines eligibility for receiving these various rights, how does this relate to the issue of equality? One must first address this topic before entering into any discussion of civil versus individual rights. Then one must ask, what is society's role in securing my rights? What are my duties to society? This in turn brings up a discussion of society's purpose. One could ask what provoked men to first enter into a civil organization.
In discussing any of the above-mentioned topics, the issue of morals plays a significant role. Whether one simply states that rights are based on moral principals, or that all decision making is somehow carried out using moral principals, it would be impossible to remove it from scope of the discussion at hand. Also important in deciding which sphere has greater importance, civil or individual, are self-interest and the degree to which they have influence over this decision. Are we motivated completely by self-interest, or is there another factor that facilitates our motivations? Is civil interest distinct from individual interest or does it exist only as a method of protecting individual interest? What is a right?
When discussing the American conception of rights I tend to favor the view presented by Thomas Paine. He believed that the rights of one man are the duties of another. In possessing a right some one else is required to respect that right, therefore there can be no rights without duties. (Alexy, p. 77) In turn this would imply that we as people have a civil duty to respect the rights of others if we chose to posses those same rights our selves. Madison and Hamilton would, I believe, say that our rights were endowed by a creator, as would Paine. They would say that they exist and are protected not so much by duties to others, but by being guaranteed by a social contract.
In this respect we would assure our rights by carrying out our civil responsibilities. This is accomplished by respecting and adhering to the law. Even Calhoun admits that in exercising a right that we have certain obligations and that they must be adhered to when exercising a right. (Glendon, p. 84) Summer said the best way to protect our society and the rights we have with in it is by doing you civil duty. In fact he says that the true definition of civil liberty is an equilibrium of rights and duties that would produce a state of peace, order, and harmony. (Campbell, p. 114) There are many different kinds of rights proposed by the various theorists. Paine said we posses natural rights endowed by our creator. These rights he believed could be put into one of two categories, Individual or civil rights.
Individual rights are those in which the power to exercise is as perfect as the rights itself. Civil rights are those that the power to exercise is imperfect in that case we give up this right to the common stock of society in which case they then become laws. Everyone is subject to these laws, and the duty you owe is to the government in regard for these rights it helps you exercise. (Maccormick, p. 93) Moon believed we possessed rights called welfare and option rights. Option rights are those that do not exist in everyone but are rather possessed based on the achievements of a person due to the degree of their agency. They are rights of discretion that can be exercised accordingly, provided they do not infringe upon others rights. He also believed in welfare rights.
He stated that welfare rights are what we would call positive rights, those of duties or provisions owed or granted to us. He however believed that these rights would be better if offered to all members of society on an equal basis. He believed simply providing welfare rights to those in need brought on shame and reduced the drive to work. So instead rights like those to education should be offered to all, and people could then choose whether or not to accept them. (Alexy, p. 126) Croly was an opponent of equality; he believed that we should all have a right to is equality of opportunity. This is similar to a positive or a welfare right. Equality plays a key role on determining who should be entitled to what rights.
The authors of the federalist believed that property was a precondition to many rights including that of suffrage. Pain however would disagree saying that property can not exist as a precondition to rights, but that there can be no equality in the distribution of property. He would say men are born and continue to be free and equal, in respect to their rights. Therefore the only civil distinctions that can exist are those based on utility. (Campbell, p. 160) Calhoun would say men are not born free, that we are not born men we are born infants. As infants we lack the proper abilities (what moon would call agency) to be participants in government. And in turn as we develop we do so distinctly, so we are not born with equality either.
Calhoun does say that equality under the law is crucial to liberty. But in turn he says that because liberty allows for self-determination to improve ones condition, that it would lead to inequality, and that this is acceptable because it is an important factor in society's progress. He believed that people should be able to exercise their rights and carry on their interests provided they are consistent with the ends of government. (Campbell, p. 164) Moon sees people as agents, doers and contributors. (Glendon, p. 152) He states that agency rights are essential in a representative democracy. All people capable of responsible action should be participants in discourse.
Their participation will yield principals of equal treatment to all parties involved. But people who dont have agency (children, and the mentally capacitated) are excluded; therefore there is no pure equality in Moons theory. Moon even concedes that not all people have the right to be treated like a person (Glendon, p. 156) Lastly there is the issue of interest. What drives man, is it interest, where does that interest rest? While Paine was undoubtedly a proponent or individual rights in the strictest sense, even he stated that mans interest and duties should be directed at government. () Calhoun on the other hand was slightly more skeptical and tended to place more enhances on the individual. He said man has more individual concern than civil concern, and that this results from the law of self-preservation.
This makes government necessary as sort of a mediator between the conflicts of individuals that will result. If man were more civilly concerned we might not need government. Society comes before government. Government exists to protect society. Even if mans interest were purely civil we would still need government to issue rewards in order to encourage individual achievement. And because government is provided with an opportunity to abuse its power, we in turn have a constitution to protect individuals from government.
Furthermore, the right to self-protection should protect the separate interest of the community and the individual. (Alexy, p. 163) Moon would have us focus on our individual interest but with in the confine of individual spheres, by limiting the respective scope of government. People by nature are agents and work, as they should, for their own desires. Croly on the other hand would have us compete for achievements base on our own individual interest, but for the ultimate goal of furthering a more efficient state. Interestingly the most individually oriented theorist, Sumner, said hard work by man is the best way to further the public good.
Self-interest motivates all. If you purse personal good only, you will further public good, but it would be unwise to try and directly further the public good. Further more Sumner believed that welfare has never been effective, it has only dampened competition. (Campbell, p. 211) Moon however seems to provide an answer to this dilemma. He states that if we were to provide certain welfare rights, like public education, on a universal basis, it would attempt to replace the need based aspect of welfare that would tend to diminish competition, as Sumner suggest. In drawing my conclusion I would like to point out that all of the above-mentioned theorist, despite their contrasting views, have two points in common. First they all agree, despite the terminology used, that a right is a two way street.
Rights can not exist with out corresponding duties or responsibilities. This is logical, someone can only exercise a right over something if someone is willing to reciprocate and do as they demand. (Maccormick, p. 202) One can only have the right to speak if someone is willing to let him or her speak. Secondly that they all seem to suggest that in exercising these rights and duties that there must be a balance of the two, between individuals and their society. Whether it is a balance between individuals and their government, or individuals and the people of the surrounding community, matters not. In order for people to exist in a civil society, they must devote some amount of energy toward their civic duties. Everyone cannot simply lookout for him or her self.
This would leave no room for a civil society because such a society demands a degree of respect by citizens toward one another. Furthermore if no one is willing to adhere to their civic duties, then by definition no one would posses any rights. In this situation decisions and actions would be the product of force, and might, would indeed make right. (Alexy, p. 244) I can not bring myself to believe that the years of intellectual achievement that civil society has allowed, would result in a decision to allow this type of situation. Instead as we become more enlightened creatures, we should seek to make reason and intellect the most widely used tools of our decision making.
Yet man first came together, and relinquished his total individual freedom for one reason. That reason being that a civilized society allows man to live in greater comfort, and achieve more than he ever could by taking on nature alone and independently. I believe that man by enlisting into a civilization changed his nature. He gave up a world of total individual freedom, with no rights or duties, and a lack of provided protection from other groups. He exchanged his total freedom for rights, which work as guarantees to certain aspects of the freedom, which he is unwilling to give up. He also received the benefits of duties owed to him by the society, namely that of protection.
This however was not an immediate process. Men had to give the power of what once was their freedom to some central authority, which would use this power to direct the efforts of the society. It took a long process of abuses by monarchs and autocrats who ceased this power trough force, before man wised up and took to ensuring he was granted these cherished aspects of life. Given all of this it would be unreasonable conceive that man would lose all interest in personal gain, and devote all of his attention to the good of society. This conclusion could not logically follow given the historical evidence of mans purpose in constructing a society. Rather I believe that we must allow our civic duties and individual rights to co-exist and facilitate the proper functioning each other.
One can lean in one or the others direction. For example Singapore leans toward the importance of civil duties because its civilization is based on the importance of and orderly and peaceful society. Yet the U. S. leans more toward individual rights, because our individualistic and very competitive society, values them more.
But the difference is really very slight. As long as the direction is chosen in a democratic manner by the people of the society, their decision result from a right to chose, and is maintained by their duty to their society. They are one and the same, one is not more important than the other. More emphases are just placed on one over the other.
It is simply the reflection of the values of that society. Words Count: 2, 227. Bibliography: Alexy, Robert. (1992). Individual Rights and Collective Goods, in Carlos Nino, ed. , Rights (New York: New York University Press, 1992).
Campbell, Tom. (1986). Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality. New York: Blackwell. Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991).
Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press. Maccormick, Neil. (1982). Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy.
New York: Clarendon Press.
Free research essays on topics related to: individual freedom, civil society, decision making, individual rights, civil rights
Research essay sample on Individual Rights Vs Public Order
