7 Answers

  1. Let's say it doesn't. Then the question immediately arises: who should decide what rights and freedoms they should have? You? Me? Who is the outstanding mind that has all the necessary data to make a decision whether to give you the right to live or not? However, why delegate such a decision to someone? After all, there is life in itself. It will put everything in its place, who is alive has the right to live, who is dead-has not. Who is rich-has the right to wealth, who is poor-has not. But after all, life already puts everything in its place, it doesn't care if we think that we should be equal or not. We cannot stop this process or prevent it. And most importantly, it is always a post-factum assessment, which does not help us to live and make decisions here and now about how to do the right thing.

    OK, let's look at the other side. Why do we need rights and freedoms at all? Because we want to organize society. We want to organize a society that works better than its absence and supports itself over time, rather than falling apart at the first opportunity. Rights and freedoms are about how we evaluate people's actions. What we see as permissible and what we don't, what we encourage and what we blame in people. Let's say we forgive one person what we don't forgive the other, he has more rights and freedoms, deservedly. But this leads to a situation where you can earn the right to drown a puppy, if you transferred 5 grandmothers across the road, conditionally. Would you like to live in a world where evil is redeemed by good, and in advance? Where do people transfer grandmothers across the street to drown puppies with impunity?

    Or another situation of inequality – we give one person the opportunity to try out running, but do not give the other. Snout did not come out, run. We don't know if he ran well, he's just ugly. Or maybe his parents didn't run well. Or we just don't know any famous runners with his last name. Do you think this is a reason to keep him out of running training? Would you like to live in a world where you were not personally accepted to the physics department, because among the famous physicists there is not a single one of your namesakes? But there were famous goldsmiths, so here's a scraper for you, go clean the cesspools. In such a society, would you work for its good?

    I can continue to give examples, but two will suffice. It seems clear that inequality is a bad thing. At the same time, it is there, we can't do anything about it, people are different, life puts everything in its place. But we can still do something-not help life. Let her arrange everything as she sees fit, and we will proceed from the equality of people. Convict the rich for crimes just as if they were poor. Allow the poor to study just as if they were rich. Because if we start helping nature, it will no longer be possible to say that it has honestly put everything in its place. How can it be fair to run a race where we decided in advance that the handsome guy over there should win (because it will look good on the podium), so the rest of us tied their feet? He will win, of course – because nature does not know whether his advantage was fair or artificially created by us. If we want to trust the decision of nature, we need to clear it as much as possible from our interference. This is the proclamation of equality of rights and freedoms, and the chain of reasoning given above is a summary of human history from antiquity to the present day. You can start with the Greeks and see how this particular course crystallized in people's minds right up to Locke.

    People were interested in how to build a productive society that could exist as long and stable as possible, in which people would be most interested in working for its benefit. Equality of rights and freedoms is the jewel of their intellectual work, known since ancient times. While its opposite is the idea that people are unable to build a decent life for themselves and do not deserve it-this is a relatively recent idea, like everything that passes for ancient traditions.

  2. It depends on what you mean. At first glance, the answer seems obvious-yes, they should… still, this is not entirely true. For example, can adults and children have equal rights and freedoms? Well, it is quite obvious that this is not only wrong, but also dangerous for the same children. In the same way, it is quite obvious that a person who has more money actually has more freedom than one who has little money. Or, for example, men cannot have rights related to the course of pregnancy, because they do not need them – this is a purely female feature. In general, rights and freedoms are not the same for different people in fact and can not be the same if we mean a reasonable organization of the legal field. Here it is important that there is no discrimination, i.e. oppression of one group of people by another group on any grounds (for example, on the basis of gender, race or nationality, etc.). The distribution of rights and freedoms should be as equal as possible, and restrictions in rights and freedoms should arise either due to natural causes, or be related to some reasonable principle (for example, security or optimal decision-making). Rights and freedoms will always depend on a particular person and their belonging to certain groups, and it is probably impossible to make them absolutely equal for everyone, but no one forbids us to strive for this.

  3. Hello.

    I think, yes, they should.

    However, the issue is very multifaceted and multifaceted. We can talk about different areas in which there should be equality. You can talk about different conditions in which it is achievable. Finally, it is necessary to take into account how and at whose expense equality will be ensured and maintained.

    Here, for example, is financial equality. What is it supposed to mean? The same salary for everyone? That's a good thing in a way. But everyone has different jobs. A warehouse guard cannot claim the salary of a judge of a regional or regional court. Well, let's say we are referring to a single job. Should all watchmen receive the same amount? Probably, yes. However, one watchman regularly watches the whole shift, and he has order, and the other is always away somewhere, and something happens on his duty. The first one will get a bonus, and the second one will pay a fine, etc.

    As for the difference in salaries in the regions, I think this difference should be reduced. For many types of work, the salary in Moscow and the regions differs significantly. I think this is wrong. However, there is a significant benefit in such a difference. A large influx of labor to the capital allows you to redistribute financial flows across the country and make a profit due to this difference.

    In essence, there are objective reasons: the quality of the work itself, the quality of its performance by a person – and there are also subjective reasons that allow you to benefit from inequality. Unfortunately, often when discussing such problems, concepts are substituted. People demand equality in the subjective sense-to eliminate the subjective causes of inequality, and they are shown objective reasons: one did more, and the other less.

    From the moral point of view, objective reasons cannot be eliminated, they are just. Remuneration should correspond to the complexity of the work itself, its importance to the state, and the integrity of its performance. But subjective reasons violate justice. The person feels this, but can do nothing. After all, power in the state is somehow based on the strength and benefit of those who hold it. It is clear that they will not leave themselves without benefits and will resort to forceful methods of solving problems as soon as the need arises. And for the sake of peace in society, we can talk about objective reasons and prove that there can be no equality. Such rhetoric with the substitution of concepts in politics is always present in one way or another, because the authorities always use force and disinformation for their existence. But somewhere it happens more humanely – where there is stability and the elite is happy with their position. This allows the common people to leave something behind, and sometimes to preserve justice in the laws and courts. And where there is a crisis, there is no time to think about people. They would have survived by themselves.

    Sad? Yes. But this is life. I could also translate everything I've said about finances into the right to vote, freedom of speech, and so on.Everything is individual in each area, but there is also something in common. In general, one can ask the opposite question: does a person have the right to a fair and kind attitude on the part of society and the state? You will say: yes, of course. Good. And the person himself is going to be honest and kind with other people and in relation to the state? This is where the difficulties begin. The thing is, no, it's not going to.

    General equality is a fair society. And a just society is a utopia. So is a good society, a cultured society. Utopias require repression and agitation. And people don't like it, they're already tired. Therefore, the majority will not want equality, as long as there is freedom.

    I think the equality (reasonable) should be. But this is possible only with high moral standards and the willingness of society to live by them. But when this will happen, it is difficult to say.

    Good luck to you!

  4. In short, rights and freedoms can only be discussed in terms of agreement between people, both within the same group and between groups. For clarity , you can set yourself certain rights and freedoms (convenient for yourself), but not recognize them for others. So others may not recognize yours. Only agreement and equal compliance. But if they decide that some party may have more rights and freedoms, then this is their right and the right of agreement. The answer is they can, but they don't have to.

  5. Should they? No. Equality is just one type of interaction between the state and the people. It didn't exist before, and it doesn't exist now in many countries. There are natural rights that, in my opinion, are sucked out of your finger, or rather from some ethical considerations, and are not supported by anything other than the inventions of philosophers. There are legal rights secured by the state and guaranteed by it. Therefore, when you ask a question, you need to understand that the word “right” has many concepts and not only those that I have written about. As for the latter, many people do not know what law is and present it in the most perverted forms.

    Law is always expressed in laws, without them it is nothing.

    The right is not permissiveness, but an opportunity to get something under certain conditions.

    Equality is not equal to equality.

    The right is not equal to the exercise of the right.

    In other words, freedom of speech does not mean that you should be allowed on any radio stations or TV channels so that you can express your opinion.

  6. Such questions are most easily answered with a counter-question – and please specify the Author, if you have a possible answer “people should not be equal”, then what rights and freedoms are you personally ready to give up?

    This question should be asked to every statesman, every pseudo-patriot, every president, every person who even slightly tries to speak out against liberalism.

    And if he doesn't answer, he's immediately caught in a lie.

  7. I am somewhat confused here by the mode of “ought” – “should people”. But you can also think in terms of this. Yes, in principle “should”. Since people are basically moral beings, endowed with free will and in principle recognize that the law “love another as well as yourself” is good, then from this moral natural principle (now we will not discuss where it comes from – from evolution, from the moral nature of God, etc.) and the equality of rights and freedoms of all people on Earth, regardless of gender, race, national and ethnic origin, social (class) status, political status, etc. First, because historically, at a certain stage, people were already equal in their rights and freedoms (early primitive societies), but they were such within limited, small collectives that were at war with each other. Therefore, equality then could not be held. But now, with the development of production and the spread of humanistic principles, people may well rise above their racial and national egoism. They can, but they are hindered by the factor of structural socio-economic and political inequality within the framework of modern global capitalism (in principle, you can call it whatever you want “market society”, “the principle of the dominance of economic interest”, words are not important). The propertied classes of the developed world and their elites are not (and never will be) going to voluntarily cede power and influence and extend the principle of equality to other people. It is not profitable for them, because they lose their exclusive position. And so, yes, people should be equal, this corresponds to their social nature and even biological instincts. Let's say people instinctively (most people with a normal psyche at least) they feel joy at the sight of a baby or even a cub of another mammal). What does this joy mean? The fact that in the limit, every human being is biologically programmed to consider a helpless infant of their own or close to them biological species-in need of protection. So the principle of equal rights of all people is recognized by us even unconsciously – we all want to subconsciously take care of a small representative of our species (the same is true for animals). Supposedly,” natural ” hierarchy and inequality (including in animals) arise either from the inability of living beings to manage their available resources intelligently (in higher animals, their collective communities are hierarchical because resources are limited), or from the need of some beings to appropriate resources that belong to all.

Leave a Reply