Allotting rights

Rights give people benefits and opportunities they might not other­wise have. But on what basis should the state allot rights? Various reasons are put forward for giving benefits to some rather than others, or more benefits to some than to others. On one view priority should go to those who are abler, or have achieved more, or have greater needs or responsibilities. Their contribution or burdens are greater than the average. So they deserve extra consideration or need extra help. On the other hand supporters of equality argue that for the state to deny a person something that is given to others, unless there is a good reason for denying it, is to deny them the respect that is their due.

It seems to follow that some laws that distribute rights are unjust, because they give something equally when they should make a distinction, or make a distinction when they should not. But much depends on the sort of right involved. Take the right to vote. This is something that most people want. It gives them a say in deciding who is to govern them.

Should everyone have the vote? In practice children below a certain age are denied it, on the ground that they are less able to make a sensible choice and have fewer responsibilities than adults. The same reasons used to be given for not giving women the vote, and in some countries for not giving it to black people. In most countries foreigners and prisoners still cannot vote.

Why should this be? Obviously opinions have changed about whether women can make sensible choices. But equally important has been the thought that people need the vote to protect their interests. The responsibilities of women are as heavy as those of men, or heavier. But foreigners do not need the vote so much, for they can generally vote in their own countries. The argument against giving prisoners the vote is that they have shown that they do not respect the values of the community that are embodied in its laws. On the other hand they need the vote to protect their interests as much as anyone.

If we assume that voting laws in modern democracies are not unjust, there must be cases in which it is just to give a right to all the members of a group (women, ethnic minorities) and cases in which it is permissible not to give it to any of them (the young, foreigners, prisoners). Several factors have to be taken into account in making a just voting law: the respect owed to all, but also people's varying needs and capacities. And if this true of the vote it may be true of other rights as well.

It does not follow that when these factors are taken into account there is only one just way of deciding who can vote. A country that gives resident foreigners or prisoners the vote is not acting unjustly, though it would not be unjust to refuse it either. In that case there is no uniquely just way of giving and refusing the right to vote, but we can point to some that are unjust and others that are not.

It is quite easy to point to factors that could not properly be taken into account in deciding who can vote. It would not be fair to make a person's height or surname a factor in deciding who could vote, because it is not true that people of a certain height or surname are more capable or need the vote more than others.

Yet height can rightly be taken into account in other contexts. People above a certain height may be better qualified for the police force than others because height inspires respect. People of a certain ethnic or religious group may need to be protected against discrimina­tion more than others, because there is a strong prejudice against that group. Justice does not require every right to be made available on exactly the same basis. When rights are allotted and the justice of the allocation is disputed, it makes a difference what the point of giving people the right is.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20