Butterfly North wrote:Those who get a job would be entitled to buy more ice cream than those who don't (because they have the money). Those who are tall would be entitled to pick up dirty magazines from the top shelf over those who are short. Those who are born in France would be entitled to vote in French elections over those who are born in Argentina. These are all examples of inequality of freedom/capability that are not objectionable and cannot sensibly be considered as a disparity in rights. If I am better at tennis than you are because my mum paid for lessons when I was a kid that isn't an affront to your rights any more than me being better at communicating because of my upbringing. Neither is it a statement about me being more entitled to win tennis matches than you are. It's just a bit unfair, like life unavoidably is.
I'm not talking about agency here. If you're employed, yes, you're entitled to the income which comes from it. If you're born somewhere, yes, you're entitled to participation in that jurisdiction. If you're physically endowed, yes, you're entitled to physical ability.
However, being physically endowed does NOT entitle you to social hierarchy. Society is predicated upon personal relationships, and the only characteristic which makes personhood valuable is self-forming action. Personhood does not come about through how strong that self-forming action is because strength can be also found in nature.
In turn, all people are entitled to know what the boundaries of appropriate self-forming action is. Otherwise, it would be impossible to claim everyone relates to society. How can someone relate without self-forming action? How can society relate if it does not have self-forming action? How can people relate with society if both sides do not have equitable self-forming action?
If you have a problem understanding the sort of language most people would understand perfectly well there probably was some underlying factor at play during your childhood which was a) beyond your control and b) to your detriment. That does suck. You should have the right to be nurtured during childhood, the right to education, and so on. However that is not the same as saying that me and my uncle and my uncle's favourite tv chef all have the responsibility to spend efforts in compensating you for that injustice. You do not get more rights by virtue of earlier having your rights violated.
This doesn't make sense. How can you believe in injustice without believing in remuneration?
All people are entitled to dignity, but when context is not communicated properly, that dignity does not become identified. In turn, others who identify dignity receive an imbalanced social advantage in knowing the line between social assertion and social coercion which makes it impossible to claim a relationship with society. In this case, it would be over the definition of "they". All people must receive a social understanding of how "they" is meant because otherwise, they're at risk for being alienated such that there's no real relationship with society.
Those who identify dignity when others do not MIGHT be guilty of alienation. It depends on whether their lifestyles actually contributed to the circumstances under which someone else was alienated. If there's no interaction, then there's no guilt. If they didn't receive attention which was supposed to go to someone else, then there's no guilt.
However, if they either directly pushed someone out of awareness and/or benefited from a mutual benefactor who paid attention with prejudice, then they're guilty. In turn, the guilty would be obligated to directly spend time, energy, and attention rehabilitating the alienated (similarly to community service). They received excess, so that excess needs to be returned to who's entitled to it.
If you need a similar example, say I contract you and someone else to be paid $100,000 a year for working for me. I pay the other person $150,000, but I only pay you $50,000.
According to you, YOU shouldn't be compensated.
According to me, the other person should be obligated to pay you $50,000 back (plus any dividends if that $50,000 was otherwise invested from the time it was wrongfully paid). I should also be obligated to pay you a nominal transaction fee depending upon the cost of how transactions are conducted in our society.
Xinzang wrote:Then why are you trying to change others?
Others have, and are continuing, to change me. I'm trying to get them to stop.