What does equal rights mean to you?

[dblack]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

 

[Pogo]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

 

[dblack]

I'm surprised that there aren't more responses for the second choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The doctrine of civil rights is the purview of the law, concening solely the relationship between government and those governed.

 

[Norman]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

We need to drag down white males to the same level as rest of the people.

So it means that we take the rights of white males away. Rise their taxes and give that money to other people.

For EQUALITY!

 

[harmonica]

majority/common sense rules
...unless you are being taken in the night, tied to a chair and beaten, don't whine about stupid stuff--like religious statues on government property ......or a Vet flag on government property....a prayer being spoken in front of you, etc etc

 

[jknowgood]

The liberals don't believe in equal rights. Just ask anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[sparky]

Well this is interesting Mr Dblack, objectively who sets the social gestalt? Governance or Society?

On one hand, watching the fool in office coerce enough 'borg' to his will advocates the former, yet so many that have the HP to view things objectively would not

So back at you, can morality be legislated?

~S~

 

[Mike Dwight]

This shows up on the processes of Desegregation versus Integration or integrationist. Desegregation was the finding that no, the southern states and government therefore were not treating people Equally with separate facilities, so the government itself needed to dump a lot of laws that aren't actually treating everyone equally. Oh people that don't understand or appreciate my daughter will grab my daughter, at facilities they're told to play nice at ,that's the last breath ditch effort justification until the very end of it. Integration is our cultural ideal, process , or society such as watching movies with black persons, or whites purposefully acting with blacks, and feeling integrated and promoting the idea of being integrated with others promoted by society. For example, I still don't share sidewalks with arabs, its also not legislated.

Just give government your 3 to 18 years old mandatory their "educating", then pay them for more "educating" hopefully get their job, retire on their social security and boy they'll let you know how close to Equal they managed to get for you, or Whatever. Your last bit, that's up to individuals, right? There's no laws about it

 

[dblack]

Well this is interesting Mr Dblack, objectively who sets the social gestalt? Governance or Society?

On one hand, watching the fool in office coerce enough 'borg' to his will advocates the former, yet so many that have the HP to view things objectively would not

So back at you, can morality be legislated?

~S~

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To answer your questions: society sets the social gestalt, and morality can be legislated, but I think it's an abuse of government to do so.

 

[eagle7_31]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

The government can act against what I would call material discrimination ie Jim Crow, employment, housing discrimination etc. What they cannot do my decree is emotional/cultural discrimination. You cannot regulate people's feeling by legal decree.

 

[danielpalos]

nice girls finally coming up to me and asking me if i want to practice with them.

 

[task0778]

Do we want to live in a society where it is acceptable for one individuals' rights and liberties to supercede those of another? The gov't cannot play favorites by arbitrarily forcing someone to pay higher taxes than another person with the same adjusted income but someone can charge another person a different price or deny service altogether over another person for any reason other than a sound business reason? Should your right to pursue your own version of happiness be allowed to interfere with the right of another person? Where does your rights and liberties stop relative to someone else's and who but gov't is going to decide where that line is? And enforce it?

 

[WEATHER53]

It means a fair and equal chance at any given opportunity. That's different than a guarantee

 

[LoneLaugher]

Those with privilege view equal rights as oppression.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much everyone agrees that government should be responsible for protecting "equal rights". But if we can't agree on what "equal rights" means, it's hardly a consensus.

I've always understood equal rights as a mandate on government to treat everyone equally. The idea being that everyone has equal status in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of status, fame, wealth, race, etc.. , enjoys the same freedoms and follows the same laws. Essentially, it means government can't play favorites.

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

You had it right the first time. Equal treatment by government.

"Society", by which you must mean "cultural mores" are not, and cannot be, legislated. That's done by social taboos and value reinforcements. And it'll vary within subcultures, so it would be folly to equate the government of a nation with the subcultures therein as if they were all one thing.

Oh really? then why did you turds force some bakers to bake a wedding cake for a couple of queers?

 

[bripat9643]

It means a fair and equal chance at any given opportunity. That's different than a guarantee

It doesn't even mean that. There are no equal chances in life.

 

[bripat9643]

Those with privilege view equal rights as oppression.

The leftwing concept of equal rights is oppression.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What does equal rights mean to you?

Very POL101/PHIL101 as questions go, but nonetheless a great discussion rubric. With luck you'll get some innovative answers.

My own conception of it is very traditional and likely familiar to readers of "books by long dead white dudes."

• Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
• Hobbes: Leviathan
• Kant: Metaphysics of Morals + Groundwork
• Locke: Second Treatise of Government
• Plato: Republic + Laws
• Rousseau: A Discourse on Inequality + Social Contract
• Bible + The Social Teaching of Jesus Christ:
  I. The Social Principles of the Teaching of Jesus,
  II. The Social Consequences of the Teaching of Jesus

Folks who've read those texts can likely tell what my view of "ER" is; folks who haven't aren't going to read what I have to write....That said, cool discussion topic. Looking forward to reading the responses.

 

[sparky]

Well this is interesting Mr Dblack, objectively who sets the social gestalt? Governance or Society?

On one hand, watching the fool in office coerce enough 'borg' to his will advocates the former, yet so many that have the HP to view things objectively would not

So back at you, can morality be legislated?

~S~

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To answer your questions: society sets the social gestalt, and morality can be legislated, but I think it's an abuse of government to do so.

Chicken / Egg DB? This got me wondering>>>

But there's a competing definition that is largely incompatible with my understanding. This conception of equal rights focuses on how people are treated by society rather than by government. It claims that society shouldn't play favorites and tasks government with making it so.

One could , if one wished to explore the extreme examples, look up all this rock's genocides.

They happened , and those societies they happened in went right along with the phenomenal moral turpitude by proxy of rouge governance

The trick is convincing any populace that someone different doesn't belong, is evil, and therefor is NOT equal as a human being

Now that we've elected a xenophobic potus , we can see all the signs and symptoms a would be dictator would use but can't, as thankfully we're not a dictatorship

Yet in theory and practice upon human nature , they're working like a charm ,along with a society raft with cheerleaders high 5'ing it all.

That might be 'chicken' ......

'egg' might be those mindless race riots (again as example) that we've a grand history of. Now the gub'mit has to step in and sort it out

In either case the pendulum of social gestalt can swing , be it from the 'powers that be' ,or that of grass rooted origin

~S~