Political Theory Essay Example for Free

Political Theory Essay Envy Test—The theory that the division of resources is actually equal if and only if one person does not prefer someone else’s portion of the wealth to his own. That means that if everyone in society is ahppy with what they have as compared to what everyone else has then the society passes the envy test. This has never happened and seems contrary to human nature. The further fallacy is that it could ever be achieved in that some people are born with innate talents that cannot be changed to give them fewer resources. Unremunerated rights—Proponents of this political theory argue that the Bill of Rights was not intended as a list of all the rights a person should be guaranteed under the Constitution. They argue that rights not listed, for instance the right to privacy, still exist. This theory was first put forth by the Warren Court in arguing that people had a right to privacy. It is also frequently used in the abortion rights debate as a justification for a woman’s right to control her own body. Politics of recognition—this is the political theory that argues we can only achieve enlightenment and equality when we recognize that people are not homogenous and acknowledge the inherent differences among people. This is almost the exact opposite of politics of equality which claim that all people have the same basic needs, wants and desires and should be treated all the same. Civic engagement—is the term used to define a person’s involvement in the social and political causes of the world around them. In psychology, it used primarily to describe how involved a person is in social causes—volunteering at a soup kitchen, etc. In political science terms, it is used to define how involved a person is in the participatory aspects of government—do they just vote, take an active role in campaigns, support certain candidates, etc. Black consciousnessprimarily used in relation to South African politics, this is the theory than being black is more than a skin color and represents the way the minority chooses to act toward itself and toward others. The movement argues that blacks in South Africa exploit each other more than whites exploit each other and that part of the problem is a culturally defined set of values and attributes that they have accepted about themselves. The movement calls for blacks to band together to change the way they treat themselves and to change the way they are treated by the remainder of society. Veil of ignorance—this is the theory that citizens are deliberately kept in the dark about the actual effects of certain legislation. In 1971, philosopher John Rawls argued that social justice requires that people be blind to the way something will impact them in particular and look instead to how it affects society as whole. In recent years, the argument has been made the special interest groups have lifted the veil of ignorance making everyone consider how legislation affects them personally. Universal citizenship—the goal of universal citizenship is to eliminate all barriers to participation in the political process. Thus, under a proposal for it in the European Union, even children would have the right to vote, though this would be carried out by their parents until they reached a certain age either 16 or 18. It assumes that everyone should have an equal right to participate in the political process. Anthropocentrism—is the process of viewing things from a solely human perspective and the word is usually used in a derogatory sense implying that by being so self-absorbed in the wants, needs and desires of humanity we may be ignoring the needs of another equally important species. This is completely in opposition to the concepts of survival of the fittest and to the victor goes the spoils. According to Dworkin, Adrian (the gardener) owes nothing to Bruce (the tennis player), as a matter of justice. Although they will have unequal goods, this is not unjust. However, Adrian might owe something to Claude (the unsuccessful gardener), and Adrian’s descendents may owe something to Bruce’s descendents. Why? In your answer, be sure to identify and apply Dworkin’s theory of distributive justice. In Dworkin’s theory of distributive justice, the beginnings are the all important state as is their impact on the end.   In this scenario, the statement that Adrian owes nothing to Bruce implies that they began life with equal resources or that Bruce began life with greater resources. It does not discuss whether Bruce might owe something to Adrian. Likewise, by saying that Adrian might owe something to Claude, who is unemployed, it implies that Claude and Adrian have equal resources and equal talents, but that Adrian has been successful where Claude has not. Furthermore, by saying that Adrian’s descendants might owe something to Bruce’s descendents the question implies that those descendants might have unequal beginning resources and ending statuses. The key to Dworkin’s distribution of wealth theory is that equal resource means equality. Therefore, if both Adrian and Bruce have the same basic resources—family, education, etc.—then they have met the initial requirement for equality. However, when a situation develops so that Adrian envies the things that Bruce has, the equality is gone. The problem with Dworkin’s theory is that it fails to address the impact of talents in the equation and also fails to address non-financial aspects of the envy test. For example, if Adrian and Bruce are able to achieve equal financial success with their respective professions, they should be equal under the envy test, but if Adrian believes (accurately or not) that Bruce has a more glamorous life with less work, more access to fame, etc., then the situation may still fail the envy test. This example perfectly demonstrates the flaws in the envy test and in Dworkin’s theory. Regardless of the flaws, Dworkin’s theory has been largely employed and thus the other caveats of the question.   The way that Dworkin’s theory has been employed, it is accepted as a given that Claude, who is unemployed, will be envious of Adrian and therefore they will be unequal. To even out this inequality, the government application of the theory has been to take resources (in the form of taxes) from Adrian and give them to Claude. The problem with this solution is that it can create envy in the opposite direction. To make them equal, you would have to remove half of what Adrian has and give it to Claude so that he would not be envious of Adrian. Then, the two would have equal resources.   Then, however, Adrian is likely to be jealous of Claude who has all the same things that Adrain does but who has not had to work for them; he will envy Claude’s lifestyle. Ultimately, much of the bashing done about the distribution of wealth system comes down to just that—another form of envy. The liberal view of universal citizenship has been challenged by feminists and advocates for race-based identity politics. What is this view, what about it has been challenged, and what is it alleged to be missing? In your answer, discuss the theories of Young/MacKinnon and Fanon/Biko. The problem with the liberal view of universal citizenship is that it requires as basis equality. If all people were equal, had always been equal, and would always been equal, then the concept of universal citizenship would be not only valid, but the appropriate thing to promote. However, the reason that it is widely-challenged by feminists and advocated for race-based identity politics is that at no point in human history have individuals ever been treated as true equals. MacKinnon and other feminists argue that it is more likely that without identifiable and motivate sub-groups of voters, the system will default o maintaining the status quo and will as a consequence promote dominance by white male society. Fanon’s argument is similar though not exactly the same. He argues that to appreciate the value of citizenship, one must have been involved in a violent struggle to attain it. This is sort of revolutionary politics at heart. It assumes that people do not value rights that they are given so much as those that they fight for. The basic premised is that in fighting, through violent struggle to attain citizenship and later the rights conveyed with citizenship, the African-American (and to a lesser extent other racial groups) has gained a self-identity that would be lost if they had been granted universal citizenship. It is possible that the opposition to universal citizenship comes from our ingrained belief in traditional political theory as developed by dead white men who placed huge limitations on citizenship including social class, race, gender, age, land ownership and literacy as well as other requirements through the ages. It should also be considered whether, despite their high-minded motivations, feminists and others who have been granted citizenship and the rights therein are not opposing universal citizenship in their own out-moded version of us versus the other. As they are no longer a distinctive portion of the other, it is possible that they desire to continue to bestow that status on different individuals including recent immigrants and children. Conservative opponents to universal citizenship say that the concept eliminates concepts of national allegiance and even racial allegiance, leading to a homogony of people that destroys diversification and eliminates cultural differences. While some proponents would say that is exactly the point, opponents point out that assimilation of all different ideas into one mainstream is counterproductive and eliminates the desire for and will to change. Kymlicka claims that all approaches to contemporary political theory endorse the proposition that all persons should be treated as equals, and that their disagreement comes down to the practical question of what that entails. What must be done to treat all persons as equals, according to libertarianism, liberal equality, utilitarianism, feminism, and Marxism? According to libertarian philosophy, equality happens when people do not use force against one another and people are given all rights which do not impose on the rights of others. This is the ultimate culmination of the Wiccan creed of â€Å"It harm none, do what though wilt.†   Libertarians believe in the defensive use of force to protect what is yours, but are staunchly opposed to the use of aggressive force. Aggressive force can never be used to promote equality. Those who argue for liberal equality believe that it is the opportunity matters. If people are given an equal chance at success, then the system has been successful according to those who support liberal equality. Utilitarians believe that people are equal when the common good is enacted for the rights of all people and that the common good applies equally to all members of society. Proponents of this theory argue that good is the important motivator and if all the actions are taken in a strict moral and ethical stance for the good of all people then the actions are inherently equal. Feminism comes in two distinctive branches: one simply promoted that after years of oppression a woman is equal to a man and can therefore do anything he can do. In an extreme form of feminism, some believe that the woman’s capability of imbuing life and her propensity for compassion make her superior to the male of the species.   The problem in extreme forms of feminism is that they also believe women should be given more than equal opportunities in an effort to make up for the centuries of oppression by men and that men should be denigrated to the class of secondary citizens.  Ã‚   Marxist theory claims that men are unequal in their talents and abilities, but that one talent or ability should not be more highly valued than another—thus a person whose talent is in digging ditches should be as valued as a person whose talent is neurosurgery. Are equal rights sufficient for realizing justice? Why or why not? In your answer, consider and discuss those theories of justice that find equal rights sufficient as well as those that do not. Equal rights are not sufficient for justice. There must also be an equal application of those rights. For instance, if a black man and a white man are accused of a crime, both have an equal right under the law to a jury of their peers, but depending on the racial makeup of the jury selection pool, they may not have an equal opportunity for the enforcement of those rights. A black man may find himself facing a just or only white Americans and vice versa.   Likewise, technically a rich man and a poor man have the same right counsel if accused of a crime, but the reality of access tells us that the rich man will likely hire an independent lawyer and will be less likely to serve time for his crime.