Disadvantage

What should governments do to help the disadvantaged in society? Yet even this presupposes the more fundamental question of who are the disadvantaged?

Part of the project is to come to understanding of disadvantage, and the ways in which life can go badly. The ‘capability view’ advocates that there are roughly ten major categories of functioning, and that the good life is one which involves representation from all of these categories. These include life, bodily health (often interpreted as access to healthcare) bodily integrity- not being subject to attack on leaving the house- sense, imagination, thought, (linked to education), autonomy, control over environment (including political power), and perhaps, somewhat controversially, leisure time.

As an extension, risk and vulnerability are relevant. It matters not simply what an individual is capable of in the short term but what can be sustained over the future. Take
two people- both on the same income- where one has a permanent job, and the other although earning similar wages, has no job security, and cannot safely assume he will have work in the near future. The fact that employment is insecure with the latter means one is clearly disadvantaged relative to the other. The consequence could be insecurity, opting to undertake significant risks, or not engaging fully- i.e. not being willing to start a family, or take out a mortgage- for fear of breaking the bank in the absence of a reliable income. So the thesis depends on fact that you are disadvantaged when you are forced to take risks.

It has been estimated that the best way to evaluate the problem is to use a sporting analogy; that of decathlon scoring, where the average disadvantage is measured over ten events. Definitively, the loser will be the one who is worst-off. Visible traits may include being unemployed, bad health, poor homes, extreme poverty, all of which will lead to being near the bottom however the weighting takes place.

Government has a duty to create atmosphere in which disadvantage can be improved. The aim is to neutralise, or where possible remove disadvantaged clusters to create an environment brimming with equality of opportunity. Success is achieved when there is no correlation between the decathlon events- and where different people come out top in different disciplines, making them all roughly equal. And where disadvantage no longer clusters this is the ultimate mark of success.

In addition to the disadvantaged clusters, privileged clusters are prevalent with similar ramifications. Accordingly those who have good jobs will also have good health, good homes, and good holidays.

The way to improve the situation is to eliminate the so-called corrosive disadvantages. This is when a single detriment leads to another, for example when a lack of affiliation to a community lends itself to poor health, because there may not be anyone to look after the ageing individual. Not quite the opposite but, fertile functions are when possession leads to good effects, such as literacy helps finding a well-paid job which in turn pays for other necessities such as education or healthcare.

There is cause for optimism because recently, the conservative perspective has been more amenable to interfering to address the problem. Now, there is a consensual starting point for social intervention.

Consequentialism

'The end justifies the means' is a common phrase. It suggests that consequences should determine the value of the actions, and more often than not, is cashed out in terms of the balance of happiness that will result from undertaking, or refraining from an action- e.g. will a given lie on balance maximise happiness? This is repeatedly contrasted with the theory of duties and obligations- e.g. that we should avoid lying at all costs, regardless of the circumstances, because of some moral responsibility.

Consequentialism is an umbrella term for a family of moral theories, all of which evaluate acts, rules, and social institutions according to their consequences. The most familiar by far, is Act Utilitarianism which addresses consequences of acts (as particular decisions) in an effort to maximise ‘utility.’ According to this theory, the ‘right’ acts are those which produce most happiness and welfare. Therefore, in maximising happiness, it might be advisable to implement a system of capital punishment in order to create a deterrent to would-be criminals. So harm inflicted on a small number would prevent latent criminals from causing a greater happiness deficit to society in general.

But suppose there is a situation where I owe you money. Most happiness might be derived by giving it away to a stranger in redistributive fashion. But common sense hints that this would not be appropriate because there was a contractual agreement stipulating that I should pay you.

The way around these murky waters is to adopt so-called Rule Utilitarianism, which says that utility should be used to assess rules, and rules ought to be used to consider acts. The theory examines society, and finds that breaking rules incurs more long-term harm than sticking to them and thus the corollary is that happiness is maximised where people observe rules, and keep their promises. Therefore, people must abide by the rule even if it does not necessarily maximise happiness directly. This can appear to be a complete separation from concentrating on the utility of an act, if the primary consideration is governed by convention. However, there exists a distinction between mere rule-worshipping, and Rule Utilitarianism. Essentially it does not matter what label you give the theory, but more its plausibility meaning that despite the fact that it may not be strictly-speaking Utilitarian, it remains a viable guide to morality. Suffice to say that a rule might be something like ‘break any other rule in order to prevent disasters.’

Utilitarianism is often found abutting deontological and virtue ethics. The former holds that people have fundamental rights- which should be safeguarded even if this means disregarding happiness and welfare, and the latter focuses more on character, rather than actions. These leading theories are left to fight over our common sense moral intuitions. These intuitions exist principally on three levels, from certain restrictions- not to torture or steal- obligations- such as family, friends, and promises- and about doing good in general. The theories are effectively competing over the universal ground- that which relates to intuitions on all levels- and can act as an ethical guide irrespective of the given situation.

Many argue that ultimately, Consequentialism is the most plausible because it makes the best stab regarding common sense morality. Undoubtedly, there are problems such as the degree to which Act Utilitarianism- maximising happiness-comes at expense of self-interest. Imagine for instance that a man is approached by an Oxfam charity collector. Willingly he gives £5, but the woman asks about other £5 pounds in his pocket, which he accordingly hands over. The follow up is ‘but what about car keys?’ As a result, it is very difficult to see how he can stop short of impoverishing himself. The net benefit associated with the act of generosity would imply that he had to keep giving- because the act would be benefiting others more than it would cost. However, it is noticeable that very soon, he would have degraded his living standards significantly. The implication here is that morality requires extreme sacrificing. Rule utilitarianism again holds the solution; on the other hand it says that Joe Bloggs can give 10% of salary to charity and stop there- and still satisfy all his moral intuitions. According to Rule Consquentialism, people should stand by the rules and established social norms unless there are apparent better alternatives.

Crucially, happiness should not be the only important ‘consequence.’ Some claim that relevant factors should include those of non-sentient beings, as well as fareness. Whatever is included in the definition, it is clearly an idea which allows us to confront moral decisions with a dependable framework.

Multiculturalism

The Phenomenon of mass migration has made the tension between liberalism and multiculturalism one of the most hotly debated topics in contemporary political theory. Multiculturalists believe that members of minority groups should have the right to live their lives as they see fit. But what happens when certain minority values clash with those of the majority?

Multiculturalism expresses the notion that popular identity matters, and so attempts at ignoring or disparaging cultural identity are akin to harm. The repercussions of this ideal infer that it is inappropriate to expect everyone to adopt the practises, traditions, and values of the dominant group. The public policy implications impress that it is likely that the laws and institutions will tend to reflect the values of the dominant group, and it is a bias which has to be justified and undone.

It derives from principle of toleration; that we demonstrate a disposition to put up with things (or people) of which we disapprove, in situations where we have the capacity to intervene but choose not to. It is based on the idea that individuals have the right to autonomy- and should be free to determine their own ideals, exempt from interference. Therefore, the theory suggests that society should respect other culture’s view of the ‘good life-’ relating to the classically liberal notion ‘of every man to his own.’

But apart from the liberalist justification, there is perhaps another avenue which comes to the aid of multiculturalism, because what is ‘right’ for one person might not necessarily be ‘right’ for another. I may believe that killing animals and eating them is ethically acceptable, whereas you might believe that this act is inhumane. This raises the question whether the realm of morality ‘different.’ Is there a definitive answer to morality? Can we defend the idea of a single moral truth? Is the diversity a sign that there is no single truth, just a matter of taste?

Subjectivism, suggests that every individual will have different moral stances according to their experiences from which they derive their opinions. The corollary of this is that we can both be correct in our assumptions regarding what is ‘right.’ This lends weight to the multliculturalist argument because many advocate that individual differences, often culturally given, mean that there is no cultural reality. Partly because there is no absolute value to our actions implying that culture is a matter of personal taste, meaning that we cannot seek to alter the outlook of others, and also because individuals have a fundamental right to maintain their beliefs, multiculturalism has so much to offer.

Hobbes on the State

If humans lived in a state of nature, put simply a condition in which there was no political organisation or power, there would be catastrophic war and anarchy.

At least according to Hobbes, who made his mark witting The Leviathan around the time of the civil war. It was a book discussing the relationship between citizen and the state, in which it was argued we should cede power to protect us to a mighty sovereign.

The Leviathan can be characterised as a theory of the state. In context, at the time Hobbes composed his work, the state was commonly associated with the notion of popular sovereignty- where it was the name of the ‘body of the people’ organised for political power. Crucially, he repudiated the fundamental assumption that the people exist as a single, unified body.

His premise was illustrated with what became a celebrated piece of iconography. Taking a human body, the state was shown as having sovereign as its head, but being made up of all individual members as the body. The point being that they all exist as individuals, and attain an artificial unity through the sovereign head. So it reverses idea that body politic creates a state, saying it is only through having a sovereign that you have a 'body of the people.'

The background to the Leviathan lies in the breakout of the civil war of 1642. It was a response to the lawless nature of society and a guide so that people should understand how to produce peace instead of war.

Ostensibly it sets out a thought experiment investigating the contract of government. But perhaps the thought experiment is more than reverse engineering, and is meant to serve as a warning that life a without law, inevitably equals war. It starts with the 'state of nature' in which everyone exists just as individuals. An egalitarian, Hobbes believed that we all desire the same things- scarce goods- and that we have the same powers to obtain things.

The result is a war of everyone against everyone in which everyone is constantly liable to sudden death, in which the natural life of man is solitary, brutish and short. Circumventing this problem requires therefore that we take steps to talk to each other to avoid war. In doing so, we come to share the view that sudden violent death is intolerable; this consensus is the keystone for state, relating back to the idea that 'Fear of death is beginning of wisdom.'

The covenant is each with each, whereby we all covenant that someone should be our sovereign, thereby creating an artificial person; a representative of ourselves. It recognises that someone’s will must count as the will of everyone. The demands are that whereas I used to act according to my will, I will now operate according to yours. In the state of nature, society fails to function because there is a conflict of interest between individuals and the state, due to the fact everyone retains all their freedoms, regardless of how they impact upon others, and impinge on the rights of those around you. The covenant means giving up practically all your rights to ensure peace, especially any right to exercise discretion in respect of law. Consequently, the sovereign’s will now counts as your will.

It would appear thus far to be an authoritarian state in that it details the abandonment of your will to another. But as Hobbes emphasises, there stark choice is between subjection and death. For that reason, the role of monarch is to create an artificial unity of the people, in which the will of sovereign counts for everybody, rather than to represent interests of each and every. This fictional entity created by sovereign is called the state.

This is not the idea where the body of the people appoints a sovereign representative as an executive arm of the people; that of popular sovereignty. Instead, the people ask the sovereign to represent them, and an analogy is drawn to the court of law, where it is the role of the legal system to acquit us. Similarly, the sovereign should keep the peace with sovereign power vested in it, in a form of representative government.

We have inherited his tradition, and every 5 years we appoint representatives, giving them sovereign power to determine our interest’s thereby imparting power to make decisions on our behalf.

Finally, we do not always have to obey will of sovereign, because we must not give up rights which are indispensable to maintaining our lives, or else, why would you enter the state? Essentially, we keep hold of the liberty to act against call of state if it would endanger your existence. As such, conscription is refutable because it is dangerous and could result in death.

So the state is something other than body of the people, otherwise we would have direct democracy. Instead we have representative democracy, where the state is name of fictional body which embodies our values in order to maintain peace.