This theory stresses the principle of equal rights, and that an act is ‘just’ if equality is realized by everyone affected by the act. Before delving into John Rawls’ views on a ‘just’ society it is essential to understand his perception of the role of justice in society, as described in his book A Theory of Justice. Justice in society enforces individual’s rights and to “[deny] that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”. When the notion of justice becomes shared by all citizens, and equality is achieved, civility between members of society will restrict the use of some individuals as means to personal ends. Overall, Rawls argues that the most distinctive role of justice in society is to equally distribute rights and duties to individuals.
Once the social contract is in place, citizens surrender themselves to the ge... ... middle of paper ... ... the general will and the laws. As a result, minority groups in Rousseau’s body politic lay exposed to the threat of oppression by the will of the majority. We can grasp how this design for government can easily come to resemble totalitarianism more than democracy. In conclusion, Rousseau’s idea of forcing citizens to be free is extremely troubling. In asserting that citizens must surrender to the general will, Rousseau places far too much emphasis on the will of the political community.
Obviously, though, to change the way the public schools teach, the people in power, who currently run the schools, must be removed. They are the ones who will not "subsidize" their own demolition. One of the problems with America's public school system, as well as democracy, is human nature. Once someone is in a position of power, they generally do not want to leave, even if their act of staying is detrimental to the organization they are involved in. The problem of the "lack of morals and ethics" in this country is a large one, however, and is continually growing.
One of the reasons there is a lack of diversity awareness in schools is because of the schemes put in place by policy-makers. The United States has lacked in policies that truly enforce diversity in schools. Ovando explains the hypocrisy by stating, “Despite the alleged U.S. libertarian linguistic tradition, assimilationist and pluralist policies have each prevailed, often as surrogates for racist, classist, and religious prejudices.” Ovando 2003 p 2) Our nation needs to take a step away from the idea that our country is a melting pot. The term melting pot has a negative connotation because it refers to assimilating into one. By using English-only education, it is stripping away the cultural identity students and families in every school.
I believe that schooling should enable its students to identify the flaws in society and seek to take action to address these flaws. While I do not believe that society, as is, is terrible, I do acknowledge that there are clear flaws in many social and political systems in this country. Thus, I believe that schools should serve as the educational means for identifying these issues. I believe that society and schooling depend heavily on each other. Schooling should not serve as a mechanism to maintain the current social order – in fact, it should do the opposite.
I know the suggestions of governmental discouragement of private grammar and secondary schools seem radical, but it is only the beginning of one solution. The American public education system was founded to give every citizen of America the beginnings of an education, and to enable them to make the choices necessary to support a democratic government. Today we are faced with a system of radical differences in the quality of education, and this dichotomy can only be overcome by raising the level of interest and personal responsibility in the public school system.
Then I want to test it in the context of compulsory education. Let us begin by noting that any basic social structure faithful to liberal principles of political justice will inevitably prove nonneutral in its effects on many comprehensive doctrines and ways of life. This will be true for politically unreasonable doctrines and ways of life (militantly theocratic doctrines, or ways of life centered on violating the basic rights of others). But it may also prove true for comprehensive doctrines and ways of life more or less unopposed to most liberal political values (perhaps the doctrines or ways of life of certain traditional or anti-modern religious sects). Liberalism, Rawls tells us, cannot and should not promise neutrality of effects.
In this paper I will argue that Kymlicka’s approach is lacking in some areas. I will argue that a multination liberal state should not grant self-government rights to a previously non-self-governing illiberal national minority unless the individual r... ... middle of paper ... ...ial obligation, which does not apply to foreign nations, to take further steps, as outlined above, to their neighbouring fellow human beings. Endnotes 1 Will Kymlicka (1995), Multicultural Citizenship, (Clarendon Press, Oxford). p.76 2 Ibid., p.90 3 Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz (1990), ‘National Self-Determination’, Jounal of Philosophy, 87/9: 439-61. p.447-9 4 Supra, note 1, p.89 5 Ibid., p.83 6 Ronald Dworkin (1985), A Matter of Principle, (Harvard University Press, London). p.231 7 Supra, note 1, p.78 8 Ibid., p.168 9 Ibid., p.169 Bibliography Ronald Dworkin (1985), A Matter of Principle, (Harvard University Press, London).
This rezoning created a school that excluded those they did not practice Samtar Hasidism. These new lines created a more sheltered setting, but did not allow the schools to practice religion. The creation of a public school district that only excludes everyone but one particular religion is the major issue in this case. The claim is that this is a violation of the Establishment Claus, specifically the separation between church and state. The taxpayers and the association of state school boards claimed that the new district lines violated the Establishment Clause; a government should not demonstrate a preference for one religion over another, or religion over non-religion in general The case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) created a 3 prong test that was used to deciding if the Establishment Clause had been violated.
Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society. Reversing the traditional maxim, which says that individual liberty empowers and enriches society but weakens government, Hobbes contends that individual liberty strengthens government but endangers society. While it seems that Hobbes is fearful of threatening the government, a close reading of Leviathan show that Hobbes is so fearful of threatening society that he believes that the government should focus exclusively on ensuring the survival of its society without regard to the quality of that survival. Therefore, he contends, the government should neutralize the threat of the individual by disarming him of his liberty and by forcing all individuals to behave in a way that protects society’s survival. We must begin by distinguishing individual liberty from the other type of liberty that Hobbes discusses, what we will call “ancient liberty.” Individual liberty is “the absence of… external impediments of motion” (Hobbes XXI 1, XXI 10).