Individual Rights Vs. Public Order Essay - 2,303 words

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 societys role in securing my rights? What are my duties to society? This in turn brings up a discussion of societys 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 societys 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 treatm ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................You are reading a preview................... Visit our Blog and Unlock Full Access to this essay

Continue READING the FULL Essay by clicking HERE

Essay Tags: individual rights, new york, civil society, civil right, individual freedom

This is an Essay sample / Research paper, you can use it for your research of: Individual Rights Vs Public Order