![]() Examples such as education and social welfare are services which Marshall argues that citizens should have the right to have, because rights to services such as education are “a necessary prerequisite to civil freedom.” Public services such as healthcare and education are a gateway to such freedoms and generate an overall positive externality, which maximally distributes utility. A large part of the essay focuses on several factors of social rights which he believes citizens should have equal opportunities to access. ![]() Marshall’s essay ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ defines the social responsibilities that a government has to its citizens. Therefore, this supports my argument that satisfying the needs of the majority would be more of a priority than satisfying the needs of the few. In application of this concept, I argue that actions which maximally spread utility are the moral actions to take (as long as they are within the warrants of the law). ![]() In terms of specifically focusing on government and regulations, rule utilitarianism is particularly suitable here because “acts are considered to be right only if they conform to rules that can be supported on utilitarian grounds,” and therefore takes both spreading utility and the law into account. The concept of utilitarianism is relevant in the reasoning of my argument because it “moves beyond the scope of one’s own interests and takes into account the interests of others,” and is therefore appropriate to the wider context in question. Subsequently, if prioritising and satisfying the needs of the majority of the population is what allows society to operate effectively, then it is the right thing to do.Įlements of utilitarianism illuminate the central thesis of this essay. Overall, I argue that the aim of living as a collective is to allow the best social and political environment for a population to grow and improve, by allowing society to function effectively and achieve this goal, you are doing the ‘right’ thing. Lichbach suggests in his review An Evaluation of “Does Economic Inequality Breed Political Conflict?” Studies, chaos in the form of riots and violence would likely follow. If the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, then the government would have failed to satisfy the majority of the population. Therefore, the second- best option which should be taken is to serve the best interests of the majority of those in question, and with the majority of the population satisfied, society can continue to function efficiently, and the needs of the minority can be tended to above a minimum threshold. It has been argued that the majority rule would lead to a maximised efficiency in output of a society intrinsic from the concept is the maximisation of the best outcome. With this distinction established, this essay argues that a government’s purpose is to serve the best interests of those living in its community, and with different people requiring different needs, it is impossible for a government to satisfy every individual’s demands. ![]() We must first make a clear distinction that ‘to outweigh’ a need does not necessarily imply ‘to ignore’ a need, and prioritising a collective’s needs still does not mean that another collective’s needs will not and cannot be tended to above a minimum threshold. ![]() It is important to not assume that prioritising the needs of the many means that the needs of the few go untended to. This essay assumes that social stability is a desirable trait of society to be pursued. This essay draws on philosophical theories such as utilitarianism to support this argument. I argue that if the needs of the many are not prioritised, then chaos and social unrest on a large scale will likely entail, and this essay assumes that allowing this to happen should be considered immoral. This is because it is morally right to keep society functioning as a whole and prioritising the needs of the many is the way to achieve this. By Charles Sin – The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |