Patrick Peters
History 300
Professor Wright(and others)
February 5, 2012
The Rights of Humans
Civil Rights, Political Rights, Social Rights, whatever you call then they have dominated intellectual discussion for centuries. In his essay, TH Marshall spoke of the 3 major eras in rights thinking: “in the 18th century we started to see civil rights, in the 19th century we started to see political rights and in the 20th and 21st century we have started to see the concept of social rights”1.
Marshall is correct in 2 out of 3 of his arguments. We have our civil and political rights. They were obtained through war and protest, granted through the passage of legislation or the boldness of an individual judge. While all these rights come with responsibilities and limits they are generally accepted in today’s society. Civil rights did arrive in the late 18th century. It was here where our rights are defined. Then in the 19th century political rights ensured that civil rights were expanded to include everyone, women, minorities etc.
That leaves social rights. Here I most emphatically disagree with Mr. Marshall. Marshall advocates for just about equal everything. Education, Healthcare and redistribution of wealth are the examples cited2. Sounds good but don’t be fooled. Using Marshall’s ideas, government would be there to determine how much you can use your rights. Leading us back to a top down totalitarian form of government, which was what we trying to get away from. Civil and Political Rights work on the primis of a people first government working from the bottom up. Finally, one of Marshall’s arguments is the redistribution of wealth. Isn’t this the taking of property, yet one of our rights it to have property?3
Social rights to me consists of one question: equal opportunities or equal outcomes. Mr. Marshall is proposing equal outcomes. Everyone should be the same in everything. This sounds good in theory, but in practice it would be a disaster. The only way to ensure this practice is for the government to regulate everything about human life. I am reminded of the Kurt Vonnegut story Harrison Bergron. The story starts as follows: “The year was 2081 and everybody was fully equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anyone else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.”4 This is an extreme example I know, but it illustrates the absurdity of the position Mr. Marshall espouses. It also runs counter to the very notion of human rights. With equal outcomes you have a government ensuring that you can only use your rights, but only so far. My understanding of rights is we can use them as we wish, within limits, free of government interference.
I advocate the idea of equal opportunities. The government is there to guarantee your equal opportunity to use your rights as you wish within certain accepted limits and is there to arbitrate when a complaint is made that someone infringed upon your rights.
Bibliography
1) Marshall, T. H., & Bottomore, T. B. Citizenship and social class. London; Concord, Mass.: Pluto
Press. 1992. As cited in Wright, J.K. ASU Lecture Notes Unit 4 Module 4 Blog Topic. Arizona State University. 2011. (http://ecollege.asu.edu/re/DotNextLaunch.asp?courseid=6281034&userid=11422172&sessionid=d69b891d0d&tabid=Z+D41S4P3fBNGo2nChSF31VKG1fEaBB0GVWsIS1L7FAhtJzfbssiHkxiu/xBqevJ&sessionFirstAuthStore=true&macid=j3+A5224d+dDdSxX66sECnFTAEhrSrGg5AMlXPIJeSGIbeKHjYRq3Jw+0vMXlEPe19uml1kGtyb9brCIO1SGLO+5upW8BpL6jTMs3YMuv1VX4HZe8nrSVk8a2oHGiPtUkRn5GP8g3I0VVx4iOj53JWViODgWGw7bx8vQwqyiSQop+mznCSS4jBPHmVp89Px2Gqj82v5KmQiWXH/QnFlFyts5GRetXrm6OJazakHg2gY=). Electronic. 5 February 2012.
2) ibid
3) La Constitution Francaise, Presentee au Roi par l’Assemblee Nationale. 3 September 1791. Paris: Del’imprimerie de Baudoin. 1791. As cited in Hunt, Lynn. Ed. The French Revolution and Human Rights A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins. 1996. Pg. 78.
Even though the rights have taken several centuries to get where they are, the advancement in the last 100 years have been faster than the previous years. The improvements we have seen in these areas show how our society is improving and at more rapid speeds in the past. It seems that many people want the equal outcome without even trying the opportunity. I agree with you that the opportunity is the more important of the two.
ReplyDeleteGood post! I read the Kurt Vonnegut story, which I hadn't come across before. I think that there is a difference, however between handicapping top performers and the social rights of education and healthcare. The quality of the education one receives rests largely on one's parents status. Now take the situation in the British Empire towards the end of Equiano's life. Slaves in England had been freed, but since they had been worked hard all their lives, they were completely untaught. How could they have given their children the same opportunities that their erstwhile masters were able to give their own progeny without free schools? They couldn't. Most of the slaves would have became debt serfs almost immediately, and seen little change in their status. Health at that time was pretty much dependent on nutrition and adequate rest. The slaves were an inherently unhealthy lot given how hard they had been worked, and this could only impact their parenting negatively. One cannot say that equality of opportunity should be the only criterion, if it is not possible to get equality of opportunity without setting some outcome related goals.
ReplyDelete