Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Features of human rights
Four characteristics of human rights
Human rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Features of human rights
All human persons have the right to live, however the quality of life is dependent on the circumstances of the person. Roughly half of the world’s population lives in poverty; a term used to describe populations being unable to afford the most basic necessities to ensure survival. Singer (1993), suggests populations suffering from poverty do not receive the same right to life as those who are situated within developed countries. Singer (1993), proposes that all humans should be classified to be equal based on “the principle of equal consideration” (p21). It is through this principle that the consequences of ones actions are weighed up against the benefits and interests of those who are affected by such actions (Singer, 1993). The principle aims to target the population of those located in …show more content…
This principle is referred to as ‘the principle of equal consideration of equal interest’. It addresses the idea that it is morally right to ensure all populations are provided with an equal distribution of income, which can contribute toward basic human necessities (Singer, 1993). Marginal utility which is defined as the increase in utility prompted by one extra unit of a given service or product. In terms of alleviating suffering marginal utility would focus upon one who has access to unlimited necessities per day, therefore providing an extra amount to one whom is struggling per day (Singer, 1993). This deed can contribute toward alleviating suffering in a population without sacrificing something which is of the proportionate moral importance of the individual’s contribution (Singer, 1972). The principle of equality contains significant prima facie appeal in that it is accessible, intuitive and convincing therefore suggesting simple actions can contribute toward equality around the world as it is one’s moral obligation as a
The first standard of equality is ontological equality which is the notion that everyone is created equal at birth. Ontological equality often justifies material inequality. In fact, this type of equality is sometimes used to put forth the notion that poverty is a virtue. A second standard of equality is equality of opportunity meaning that “everyone has an equal chance to achieve wealth, social prestige, and power because the rules of the game, so to speak, are the same for everyone”( Conley, 247). Therefore, any existing inequality is fair as long as everyone plays by the rules. The standard of equality is equality of condition, which is the idea that everyone should have an equal starting point. The last form of equality is equality of outcome which states, everyone should end up with the same outcome regardless of
Using seemingly sound steps of logic, David Parfit has come to the “Repugnant Conclusion” that a world of very many people with very good lives is worse than a world of vastly more people with lives that are barely worth living. I shall outline his argument and conclusion, and then explain how we may evade such a counter-intuitive notion by reconsidering the way we measure and compare people’s wellbeing. I argue that all people inherently deserve a certain amount of welfare that exceeds that in a life that is just barely worth living, and that cannot be compensated for by an increase in number of people.
Newton believes that everyone should have the same opportunities in life, but if some because of the circumstances of their lives get a priory or some kind of special treatment then at the moment is a violation of the one who didn’t get that chance. She uses equality before the law and moral idea of equality, with this to two terms she illustrate how when equity under the law is violated to achieve moral equity, then the one doing it undermine the goal of moral equity.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
Everyone should possess equal basic rights and liberties 2. “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls 53).” He uses a social contract to develop his ethical theory of 'justice as fairness.' Rawls argues that in order to work out the basic principles of a society, each of us should be placed under a veil of ignorance (Rawls 11). The veil of ignorance places individuals at a zero point position where they know nothing about their own social class, current wealth, psychological propensity, talents or conception of the good (Rawls 11). From this ignorance, we are able to produce the basic principles about how our society should be run since everyone would concerned for everyone equally as they do not know who is advantaged and who is not (Rawls
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Throughout the history of television, it has been evident that certain news stations have portrayed their news in a way that aligns itself with a certain viewpoint or political position. For example, today one can see how stations like Fox take a conservative stance on most issues while CNN takes a more liberal perspective on the same issues. Much of the influence that the media could have on people, especially during elections, was a cause of alarm for many people. This led to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949.
Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. The principle of equality “does not imply that we must treat two groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights t...
Basic rights such as free speech, privacy, fair trial, freedom of religion, the right to ones own body, and life should be present universally. But beyond these, what else is necessary? At the very least, equality for all in education, work, voting, rights, pay, and marriage. Depriving one of rights due to their race, age, socioeconomic class, sex, gender, disability, and sexual orientation is morally unethical. The Dalai Lama says it best, “Whether one is rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or nonbelieving, man or woman, black, white, or brown, we are all the same. Physically, emotionally, and mentally, we are all equal. We all share basic needs for food, shelter, safety and love.” It is vital for one to look beyond these differences and treat their fellow human equally. Political rights such as voluntary voting and the ability to check and balance the government are also imperative. The ability to vote voluntarily gives p...
I am well aware of global poverty statistics and I do agree that if the most affluent people banded together, global poverty can altogether be abolished. However, I definitely cosign the fact that, what I work for is mine, what I own is mine and I am entitled to it. John Arthur suggests that equality and entitlements are both of equal importance when the topic is our social moral code, which is a system that we follow to guide us and that we use to make decisions. For example, as a full time college student, I work 35 hours a week, getting paid an inadequate amount, - which is besides the point - I see a homeless man begging for money, and my options are to either take the Peter Singer approach and give him money, because I feel the need to lessen global poverty even though it’s a small step towards improvement, or I can take the John Arthur approach and simply keep it moving and not even bother to contribute whether it be to lessen or worsen the issue of global poverty. It may sound selfish, but it is what it is and I simply see it as I’m entitled to my earnings. I’m more inclined to choose the option of not increasing or decreasing the problem at hand because I feel if roles were switched it wouldn’t even be an option for someone to help me even in the slightest way. We are all equal but however, that doesn’t mean financially or physically, it is in terms of we are all
The proper relationship between the individual's interests and the common good is a delicate balancing act that political philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles have tried to define. For philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the common good trumps the individual interest when those interests interfere with what they believe is right for society as a whole. For others like Aristotle and Locke, a consensus on what the common good is must be defined within the reality that individual interests exists; meaning, they cannot be completely discarded for the good of society. I believe that in a free society, where the common good to doesn't have to be forced upon its citizens, the common good should impose upon the individual's interest only as much as citizens will allow without feeling such impositions are unreasonable restrictions on their lives.
Two advantages of the difference principle will be discussed and analyzed; the first advantage is that it is morally right or fair. The difference principle represents justice and equality, even if a person receives lesser income than another person, the way they are treated in society and the compensation they receive is more than enough to regulate the inequalities that are present. Rawls defines justice as, “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (3). The fact that it is just should be one of the first aspects that the people in the original position should consider when deliberating between the principles as it is uncompromising by being the first human
The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness an action results in to the largest quantity of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes people should sacrifice as much as they can from their own possible happiness so that more people may obtain equal happiness that is sufficient. In doing so, those who are aiding others are creating a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent where everyone has just enough contentment that they do not feel pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an unbiased computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obligated to do so. In doing so, the single individual is saving the lives of a greater number of people, and thus creates more happiness than if he alone lived and the two or more people died.
This idea allows for justice to be measured by an equation, each person’s share of something must be justified by some relevant difference, making the equation equal. Each person should receive exactly what is proportional to what they put in. If you work an hour longer than someone then you should receive pay for one more hour. This is equal because you are being compensated exactly for the work you put in and the other person is not shorted in any way because they did not work that extra hour therefore should not receive the extra pay. This theory allows for impartiality when making a decision, it is not based on justice because of your moral character or consequence of your action it is based on equal justice for all based
The scope of this paper will examine the notion of equality with respect to the value of life as it is contained in the argument between Tom Regan and R.G. Frey. Regan maintains that “all who have inherent value have it equally” (Regan 66). Frey, conversely, maintains that not all lives can be of equal inherent value since the potential for enrichment is not equal for all lives. Taking both arguments into consideration, the remainder of this paper will attempt to reconcile these arguments, suggesting that a sensible compromise is possible.