Justice and Individuality, Essay Example

Can a just political society require its citizens to act against their deepest cultural and/or religious values?  This is dependent upon a definition of social responsibility.  If a society views their role of responsibility as being towards cultural or religious values, then they should not.  However, if the role of responsibility is towards society as a whole, then it is the duty of the individual to put person beliefs and feelings second, in favor of creating a society dedicated to tolerance.  By reviewing the inherent issue within this problem, it becomes apparent that although a state should do all it can to ensure the liberty of its citizens, this right should not necessarily impede upon the right of the citizens to be responsible for their own independence.

It is sometimes difficult to find balance between responsibilities towards the state and freedoms that are necessary for individuals. A definition of justice relies upon a conception of morality. What is considered just can, at times, be different for those of differing moral values. On one hand, justice can be said to be predicated on the idea of fairness. What is considered just is that which strives for a society where everyone from all classes and races has equal opportunities.  On the other, it can be based on a sense of personal freedom.  In this case, the rights of the individual to practice their own beliefs would be put before any notions of fairness.

Despite this attempt that modern societies have made to incorporate a sense of freedom and liberty into their political frameworks, issues pertaining to the extentof which this should be granted to an individual, culture, or religious group have come up.In any case, modern societies basing themselves upon notions of individual liberty and personal freedom have contended with this issue. “In particular, justice as fairness is framed to apply to what I have called the “basic structure” of a modern constitutional democracy”. (Rawls)

Democracies throughout history have fallen on one of this issue or another, and how they have dealt with it has been a reflection of their moral and religious points of view.  In this way, the state’s position on their responsibility towards providing their citizens with certain rights and freedoms has been rooted in their cultural response to this divisive issue.A culture’s view on the role of an individual within society and their relationship to the state, their family, and their culture will have an impact upon how they come to regard their responsibilities within society.

Rawls points out a schism in thought that contend two opposing viewpoints on this issue. The question is whether freedom applies to freedom of thought and individuals or for freedom of public spaces to be equal and absent of bias. These two problems are in conflict with one another, as they differ on a fundamental level. The question is essentially about how the society defines what it means to be a free person and how this relates to their notions of liberty.  This depends on whether a person’s sense of responsibility should be more towards themselves and their families, and their local communities, or towards the larger part of society as a whole.

In our society, there has been an increasingly large importance placed upon the role of government in attaining the equality that they are supposed to provide to the public. Through this endeavor, they have formed certain arguments as to the definition of freedom and liberty.  These have begun to gravitate more towards the idea that freedom can only be guaranteed through the intervention of authoritative practices.  In order to guarantee liberty to individuals, things such as a basic education are seen as necessary in order for persons to become citizens able to fully understand and exercise the basic rights and freedoms that they have been given. It is the role of the state to assure that individuals are able to deal with the responsibilities of adulthood and attain an adequate primary education.

In Wisconsin V. Yoder a question concerning the idea that a particular group or culture can exist within a society, while at the same time identifying itself as distinctly separate is discussed.While the Amish societies in Wisconsin contested that they had the right to exercise their freedoms by teaching their children in noncompliance with national and state standards the government argued for the idea that a person needs to have a basic education in order to be prepared for adult life.

While the Amish communities argue that their way of life and religion would be violated if their children were required to attend public high schools.  This debate has caused concern over this issue of the role of government in maintaining equality among individuals within society.  “As the record so strongly shows, the values and programs of the modern secondary school are in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion; modern laws requiring compulsory secondary education have accordingly engendered great concern and conflict.” (Wisconsin V. Yoder)

There is no dispute as to whether this violates the religious principles of the Amish faith.  It is widely understood that an Amish adolescent would be exposed to ideas radically different than their own if they attended a public school.  The Amish maintain that it is their right to keep their children from being exposed to this.  The issue becomes, then, whether the state’s role in creating equality is of a greater importance than the rights of the smaller communities to practice their religion.

The argument that the state makes in this case is that in order for them to be citizens, they must be educated to be responsible citizens as well as prepared for the independence that they will have later in life.  Furthermore, the state argued that the students should be allowed to pursue further education in order to be given the choice as to whether they wish to stay within the confines of their community or not.  However, as the text points out, “This depends upon what this argument of the State appears to rest primarily on the State’s mistaken assumption that the Amish do not provide any education for their children beyond the eighth grade”. (Wisconsin V. Yoder)  So the issue is, while the state may believe it has the moral obligation to impede upon the rights of citizens or take on their responsibility, it cannot be sure whether they are right in the assumptions they make as to how to accomplish this.

There can be no question as to the social progress that has been achieved through the state’s dedication to promoting social equality.  Social injustices such as slavery, racism, and the repression of women have been alleviated through the application of these ideals.  However, now that the world is more religiously tolerant than it was in the past, the question of how deeply this should be written into the structure of our legal framework has become more apparent.

By analyzing the basic moral opposition that gave rise to the abolition of these practices, we can attempt to arrive at a basis for an argument.  As Rawls points out, societies should “try to organize the basic ideas and principles implicit in these convictions into a coherent conception of justice.” (Rawls)By examining these issues and the implications of how they are dealt with a better idea of how to approach the opposing viewpoints can be found.

This disconnect is due to the fact that in a multicultural democracy social structures are often separate from religious and political orders.  While the attainment of cultural and religious freedoms has allowed a more accepting world, they have also created a much more complex ethical dilemma concerning the framework of independence within democratic societies.  While religious and ethical tolerance increases, the complexity of allowing for an unbiased political landscape becomes more difficult.  This issue can be resolved through an examination of the notionsunderlying the ideas of social cooperationand what it means to be an individual in the context of political thought.

According to Rawls, the concepts of cooperation that underpin political life consist of a sense of rule or authority presented with the obligation of fairness and the advantages that all of this entails.In order to live within society, individuals give up an amount of independence, more or less dependent upon the government that they are a part of.  This independence is given up within democracies in order to create a more fair society.  Furthermore, the freedom given up is relegated to the government or authority with the idea that the tenets of liberty will be more openly distributed.  This is done for the purpose of gaining an advantage.  Cooperation is agreed upon in society based on the assumption that it will benefit the people in some way.

To be an individual or citizen within a society is to be a free person, with both rights and responsibilities.  The idea of cooperation dictates, though, that this freedom is granted for the purpose of society, as a whole, gaining an advantage.  Individual freedom is reliant upon the fulfilment of this obligation.  In order to fulfill this obligation, people must be granted the access to reach their highest potential so that they can attain the ability to serve society responsibly.When citizens are stripped of their ability to responsibly make their own decisions, they are no longer necessarily individuals. For this reason, the idea that suppressing its citizen’s beliefs in order to promote a higher amount of equality is counterproductive.

The ideas of social justice and individuality within society give rise to divisive problems within political philosophy.  The issue of whether an individual’s liberties should be impeded upon for the sake of society as a whole initially arose due to problems inherent in what it means to be an individual within society and that individual’s relationship with society.  This relationship is based upon the idea of responsibility.  Social justice also entails social obligations, for people to have freedom they must be responsible for strict adherence to those obligations.

It is the responsibility of a just society to ensure that its citizens have equal opportunities.  This duty, however, should not have the additional effect of stripping the citizens of the responsibilities that are necessary for them to fulfill their roles within society.  The role of an independent individual within society is predicated upon the idea that they will have the ability to become responsible members of society.  If this responsibility is taken away, then they will not be able to adequately fulfill the role that is intended for them.