Are Liberty and Equality Compatible?

Are Liberty and Equality Compatible? Reconciling Liberty and Equality There seems to be an endless debate amongst different philosophers in different political traditions on whether or not the concepts of liberty and equality are reconcilable. Some argues that the two go together and therefore are indistinguishable while others conversely maintain that they are incompatible. In modern democratic societies, the two principles need to be reconciled as they both seem to have a common end of developing the capacity of an individual. The concepts of liberty and equality seem to be in conflict due to the fact that they are derived from two opposite ideologies which are liberalism and socialism. However, a common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the state or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others (Berlin, 1958). Political scientist Max Dalton clearly argued that liberty and equality are compatible. In his article titled; â€Å"Are liberty and equality compatible?† he says that when well reconciled, they support a capitalist state with some re-distributive measures (Dalton, 2014). However, inorder to reconcile the two concepts, we need to define the two terms on the outset. What is liberty? Liberty is derived from liberalism which believes in individualism. The term liberty narrowly means freedom, free will or permissive. The doctrine of liberalism stresses that an individual has got the right to live according to his or her wishes provided that such rights do not infringe on the overall good of the community. A liberal believer does not permit the state to constrain the freedom of an individual (Democracy Consolidation Programe, 2004). Liberty is contested concept. Different scholars have defined the term liberty differently. Mill, (1993) defined the term in a negative aspect as the freedom to act and he also defined it in a negative sense as the absence of coercion. Sir Robert Firmer defined liberty as the freedom to do what one likes, to live as one wishes and not to be tied to laws. In general liberty in a negative sense, also known as classical liberalism, means freedom of an individual from outside compulsion or coercion. In this sense, libertaria ns like Nozick, (1974) argues that any form of interference, either by a coercive authority, any other person or by oneself in form of ‘self-mastery’, ‘self-determination’, ‘self-realization’ or ‘self-compulsion’, is an encroachment in an individual’s space of freedom. Liberalism suggests that people need to be left alone to act on free will and to take responsibility for their actions. It further suggests that a man need to be given a realm of freedom without interference. Professor Isaiah Berlin said Liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question â€Å"What is the area within which the subject—a person or group of persons—is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons . In this sense, negative liberty seems to be a form of rejection of any supreme power or authority. On the extreme, the concept may be identified with a state of lawlessnes s. According to Johari, (2004) the negative view of liberty is not appreciated in the present time. Johari said that this is so because the liberty of an individual is relative to that of others because and man’s action need to be viewed as both self-regarding and other people regarding. On the contrary, positive liberty, also known as social liberalism, places emphasis on social structures and is related to egalitarianism. In the positive sense, social liberalism asserts that an individual need to be protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of power. In this facet, social liberalism favors for the establishment of a social structure in a form of a minimal state that will be able to provide the necessary protection of the individual’s rights. T. H. Green as quoted by (Johari, 2004) defined positive liberty as the power to of doing or enjoying something that is worth doing or enjoying in relation with others. Johari (2004) contend that since man is a social creature, his life should be regulated by certain social bonds. This entails that liberty in its negative view favours lack of restraint of an individual while in its positive view, it permits the existence of a social system that exercises reasonable restraint of individual’s actions inorder to ensure that noone is allowed to enfringe on someone’s liberty. Equality is derived from socialism, an ideology which believes in equality of all individuals. It stresses that all people are equal and therefore someone should not necessarily get too much at the expense of others (Democracy Consolidation Programe, 2004). In socialism, mutual interest and common good is the main principle of organizing the economy. Self-interest and too much individual accumulation of wealth result in depriving others which in turn creates inequalities. Redistribution of wealth for the sake of common good is one key element of socialism (Democracy Consolidation Programe, 2004). Equality has narrowly been defined as the fact of being equal or the fact of having the same value. Johari, (2004) explains that equality means â€Å"equal conditions guaranteed to each for making the best of themselves†. In political science, the term usually means the equal treatment of people irrespective of social or cultural difference and it takes myriad forms such as social equ ality, economic equality, formal equality, legal equality, moral equality, international equality etc. These forms have been categorized into two main types which are namely positive equality and negative equality. Equality in the form of social equality is referred to as the absence of class or caste boundaries and the absence of discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of a person’s identity i.e. gender, race, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion convictions, opinions, health or disability that may result in unequal treatment. In the egalitarian doctrine, equality is referred to as a condition in which all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status should be treated equally in politics and economics cycles. It advocates for the removal of all economic inequality among people and this is considered to be the classical concept of socialists. Rawls, (1972) illustrates this notion in his Egalitarian theory of Justice where he notes that cooperation under the state is manifested in the sharing of ‘benefits’ and ‘burdens’. He further argues that if individuals acquire wealth at the expense of others, then they shall suffer the burden of having part of their wealth taken by the worst-off. Equality, may also take another form popularly known as equality before the law or legal egalitarian, which entails that all persons are entitled to equal treatment before the law. In a positive sense, equality means the provision of adequate opportunities for all (Johari, 2004). Johari further describes positive equality as not simply meaning identical treatment for all since men differ in their need and capacities for their self-development. However, scholars have argued that the provision of adequate opportunity, does not mean equal treatment for all. Equality in its negative sense is referred to the non-discrimination on the ground of religion, caste, wealth, creed, domicile, descent, sex and the like (Johari, 2004). But how can the two terms be reconcile in modern society? The fact that the two concepts are different in principle has been clearly eluded to. But however the two concepts shares some form of similarities as they have common foundations due to the fact that they all recognize that all members within the society are free and equal. Scholars have also argued that the two concept provide egalitarian guidance on controversial questions about the distribution of social and economic resources. On the positive sense, social liberty takes the form of egalitarianism as it places emphasis on the establishment of a social structure such as a state that is able to regulate the actions of an individual so that he or she does not hamper other people’s rights and freedoms. In this sense, the two are perceived to be compactible and inseparable. This is so because positive liberties fully appreciate the need of restraining an individual for the sake of public good as they are perceive as both self-regarding and other people regarding. In this aspect, the desire to have equality, just like the desire to enjoy negative liberties cannot be utilized without a positive state or social structure that would restrain the individual from infringing other person’s liberties. Therefore, the notion that liberty implies that man need to be given total freedom may not be true in our modern society. This fact agrees with the real definition of liberty given by Johari (2004) who conten ded that libery is not supposed to be identified with the absence of restraints and limitation. The desire to enjoy equality destroys the possibility of having full liberties while the exercise of full liberty may degenerate into licese and equality without liberty lapses into uniformity. Liberty is superior to equality because equality serves under liberty. According to Prof. Barker Equality in all its forms, must always be subject and instrumental to the free development of capacity; but if it be pressed to the length of uniformity; if uniformity be made to thwart the free development of capacity, the subject becomes the master, and the world is turned topsy-turvy (DasGupta, 2014). The development of a rich society requires a large measure of liberty and outlaws all attempts to enforce a dead level of social and economic equality. Liberty builds a united society but equality assesses the social hierarchy and contributes towards the stability of the community. Therefore liberty would be dull without some measure of equality and equality would be meaningless without liberty. A quick look at most of the democratic constitutions of the world and many international human rights instruments will review that both liberty and equality have been incorporated and this speaks volume to the fact that the two concepts have a common aim- and that is to develop an individual and to make life worth-living. Therefore, liberty without equality results in license – acts beyond one’s rights to abuse the rights of others; and equality without liberty is dull. Bibliography Berlin, I. (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalton, M. (2014, May 1). Are liberty and equality compatible? . Retrieved from Oriel Web Site: http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Max Dalton Lloyd Davies Philosophy prize Liberty.pdf DasGupta, R. (2014, May 21). Retrieved from Preserve Articles Web Site: http://www.preservearticles.com/201104265965/notes-on-the-relationship-between-equality-and-liberty.html Democracy Consolidation Programe. (2004). Building an Informewd Nation. Lilongwe: Montifort Media. Johari, J. (2004). Principles of Modern Political Science. New Dehli: Sterling Publishers. Mill, J. S. (1993). On Liberty and Utilitarianism (2nd ed.). New York: Bantam Books. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiktionary. (2014, May 15). Wiktionary The Free on Line Dictionary. Retrieved from equality: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/equality Jean Valjean | Les Misà ©rables | Character Analysis Jean Valjean | Les Misà ©rables | Character Analysis The character I have chosen for study from Bille Augusts film, Les Misà ©rables, is Jean Valjean. As the main protagonist of the story, Valjean starts out as an ex-convict who went to prison for stealing bread, but after an encounter with a kind bishop, he makes important changes in his life. Jean Valjean went through many psychological changes throughout the movie Les Misà ©rables which molded him into a better person because of the mercy that was extended to him by the Bishop of Digne at a time when Valjean was least deserving of it; from that point on, he became a morally upright citizen who showed compassion and mercy on others. Throughout the movie, Les Misà ©rables, Jean Valjean goes through many distinct life-changing phases that permit him to grow from a loathsome of a man to a honorable man. Jean Valjeans first psychological alteration took place during his nineteen years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. He went in as a wholesome and straightforward man, but came out of jail showing hatred and scorn to society. While in prison, Valjean endured abuse and, in turn, dedicated himself to defeating related mistreatment in society. Because of cruelty shown to him there, Valjean discovered a new level of physical strength and, more-so, a new emotional concentration through his newly found cause of social justice. Whether Valjean knew it or not, he was about to undergo another big psychological transformation that would change his life forever. The Bishop of Digne played a huge role in the psychological change of Jean Valjean, even though he was only in the film for the first couple minutes of the movie. Right off the bat, the humble bishop shows Jean something that he hasnt experienced in a couple decades; the power of love and respect. When the bishop saved him from the authorities after escaping from prison, Valjean came to deeply respect his great kindness and assistanceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦so we thought. While the bishop and his wife are sleeping, Valjean, still stuck in his ruthless ways, starts stealing all of their silver utensils. At this point all I could think was, how could he do this to such a nice family who gave him a place to stay? But it gets crazier. The bishop hears the ruckus going on, so he goes to check it out only to find Jean Valjean stealing from him. Valjean ends up punching the bishop in the face, knocking him on the ground, unable to move as Valjean escapes. The next day, the police force caught Valjea n with all the silver he had stolen, and brought him back to the bishops house; this was the turning point in Valjean. The bishop shows an act of mercy on Valjean by telling the authorities that Jean didnt steal any of that stuff, but he just simply gave it to him. This catches Valjean totally off guard; he doesnt understand why the bishop would do this, so he questions him on why he saved him. The bishop responds by telling him something that would change his future forever: And dont forgetdont ever forget, youve promised to become a new man. You no longer belong to evil. With this silver, Ive bought your soul. Ive ransomed you from fear and hatred. And now I give you back to God. It was then when Valjean finally saw the brute, vile of a man he was, and the honorable, self-giving man he could become if he puts the bishops moral fiber into action. As nine years elapsed, Valjean was compelled towards a life of integrity, and consequently, he became a respected leader and prosperous businessman. After the city of Vigau bankrupted five years prior, Valjean decided to buy and refurbish the citys brick factory. At the time of the purchase, Valjean had been named mayor of the city. Obviously Valjean wanted to make something of himself, and also wanted to help others make something of their own lives by buying, running, and offering jobs at the factory to the people of the town. This is the first, of many, psychological changes we see in Valjean since the promise he made with the bishop. Additional evidence that further supports his transformation comes in the subsequent scene where Javert and Captain Beauvais are walking through Valjeans factory. Javert asks the question, The men and women work separately? Captain Beauvais answers, Yes. Monsieur le maire redesigned the factory in order to keep the sexes apart. He cares about honest working women and wants to protect their virtue. Valjean had a high regard for women workers despite the fact that many men did not value woman as important parts in society. He says, I dont want our ladies to be exposed to corruption. This is another moral transformation that Valjean has gone through. There have been a plethora of characteristics that Valjean has adopted over the years. Another trait he embraces is compassion. Fantine, a worker in his factory who had to turn to prostitution to support her daughter after being fired without Valjeans consent, was treated dissipatedly by men of the city and subsequently unjustly accused by Javert as he sentenced Fantine to six months in prison. When Valjean heard about this, he took time out of his night to make his way down to the police station to take care of the situation and set things straight. Not only does Jean set her free from jail, but he takes her into his home, just as the bishop had done for him, to care for her while she was very sick. He also paid to get Fantines daughter, Cosette, to be sent up to stay with him and Fantine. But before Fantine gets to see her daughter, she passes away from sickness. Valjean shows a further act of compassion by adopting Cosette and caring for her in place of her mother. These were just a few actions which demonstrated Valjeans newfound mannerism of compassion, and yet another psychological alteration in Jean. And yet Jean Valjean was still ready for more change. One day Valjean learned that a man named Jean Valjean had been found guilty of a crime. He knew that this couldnt be true because his name was Jean Valjean. After wrestling with his conscience, he decided to attend the court case where he revealed that he was the real Jean Valjean, thus releasing the indicted. Valjean says to the judge, I am the man you want. I am Jean Valjean. I wish I could keep my mouth shut and let this poor wretch suffer for me, but continue with the investigation monsieur. You will find further proof that I am Valjean. This was a huge decision that he made, since the authorities learn that he is an escape convict; forcing Valjean to, once again, to be an absconder from the law. This means that he would have to relinquish all the things that he had accomplished in his professional life, but by acceding to a standard of psychological integrity, by doing what is right and true, Valjean made one of the most affe cting psychological changes in his life. Sacrifice, what is it? According Websters New Collegiate Dictionary sacrifice is defined as, The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. The ultimate sacrifice is shown towards the end of the movie which shows Valjeans true character. After several years of running from Javert and the law, Valjean find himself in an intriguing situation. Valjean has Javert, who has been trying to end his life ever since he was in jail, with his hands tied, a gun to his head, and a chance for him to finally end his life. What does he do? He simply lets him go. Valjean spares Javerts life for some very straightforward, but touching reasons. Valjean is nothing like Javert. He does not embrace the same abhorrence or the desire to win like Javert does. Jeans simply wants to live in peace. This audacious decision by Valjean exemplifies how far Jean has come since the beginning of the film. Just as the bishop s howed mercy on Valjean, he also demonstrated that same act of mercy on Javert; even when he least deserved it. Even today, peoples perspectives on life are changed for the better when theyve been shown acts of love, compassion, and mercy. This is depicted in Les Misà ©rables as Jean Valjean goes through many psychological changes which shape him into, literally, a totally different person for the good. He was extended mercy when he least deserved it, and in-turn, became a morally upright citizen who showed compassion and mercy on others. I hope that through this paper youve been inspired to overcome obstacles and hard times in your own lives and are able to use your difficulties to mold you into a better person.