Monday, July 12, 2010

Seeing Citizens as Individuals is Key

I would especially like feedback on this post. I don't feel as sure as I usually do about this one.

The government's seeing its citizens primarily, if not exclusively, as individuals--as opposed to members of groups--promotes equality before the law. Citizens are people. All citizens fit into group, it is true, but not all citizens are members of all the same groups. If the government treats citizens as members of specific groups, it is more likely to use stereotypes--and not treat the members of particular groups equally. It will be more likely to have skewed dealings with members of group X without knowing that person's situation. "Oh, this person is an Irishman. He probably drinks a lot." In situations in which government emphasizes the groups one is in above the person one is, the level of justice will be diminished. If an Irishman is being tried for being in a bar fight in which he was not involved, it does not matter whether the Irish drink a lot. The case involves where that individual was, whether he was drinking, whether he had a part in the fight.

This does not mean that individuals' rights to associate will not be protected. It seems the rights to associate, when viewed as a part of individual rights will be more easily guarded. The question will not be "Should this specific religious group be allowed to stand on this specific street and chant their specific message?" When we talk about popular groups, we have certain responses, depending on whether we agree or disagree with the groups' messages, and perhaps wrongly whether we hold a grudge against a group based on their ethnic background, e.g. If we could avoid talking about groups when possible, it might promote the ability of jurors, judges, politicians, and others to see the situation with less bias. Pro-life people might support the loud protests right on the border of the property belonging to an abortion clinic because they support the protesters. However, if the situation is considered focusing on individuals, the situation might be cast as "Should an individual be able to stand on the border of a business' property, intruding by noise on the business' property?" This would promote a more fair review of the situation, and it comes from a proper view of citizens primarily as individuals.

1 comment:

  1. The impracticality of individual treatment is usually the justification for grouping. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but I would say it's certainly *better* than failing to serve the majority of citizenry.

    ReplyDelete