Today, women have been able to create a discriminate position for themselves in a hitherto man-dominant world. They have done wonders in various fields, like flying across the Atlantic, swimming across the English Channel, being part of the coveted Space Shuttle, being elected to the highest post in a government, etc. Some years back, women were given the right to vote also. But despite all these achievements, women are still oppressed, especially at the workplace. This is one place where the women haven’t been able to get their due reward or position. This happens because in the corporate world there is a trend being followed called the “glass ceiling”. The term was invented about 25 years back by Hymowitz and Schellhardt, while writing a report on corporate women, for the Wall Street Journal. Karine S. Moe and Dianna J. Shandy (2010) wrote, “…the term ‘glass ceiling’ refers to subtle barriers that impede the career advancement of women and minorities. The ceiling is glass because while the path to promotion seems clear, these invisible barriers prevent women from reaching the top levels in their careers.” (Moe, 46). If we interpret these words, glass, and ceiling, we understand why it is so-called. The word “ceiling” depicts a kind of barrier for the progress of women and the word “glass” is used as an adjective for ceiling because as glass in invisible (transparent), the barrier is also invisible. This glass ceiling dissuades women from attaining higher posts and higher salary slabs. Deborah Woo (2000) noted, “The overwhelming majority of the CEOs interviewed in the survey commission by the Glass Ceiling Commission think of the glass ceiling in terms women.” (Woo, 65).
The glass barrier takes into consideration, the disparity in salaries for similar works, promotion delays, and sexual harassment. The management of the organizations where the glass ceiling is effective has reasons to do so. According to them, the increments and promotion policies are different for women because more men tend to opt for higher-risk jobs rather than women. Another factor is that while women have to keep an equilibrium between home and workplace, men concentrate more on their workplace. This mindset of the management shows the “Deontological” theory of ethics. According to this theory, no act is wrong if it is done for the sake of duty. The management has to take care of the profitability of the company. So it decides on matters that are favorable to the company. Another theory of ethics is the “Utilitarianism” theory. People, who do immoral acts without considering the results, follow this theory.
In my point of view, although the situation has changed a great deal, yet they’re still are certain areas where the glass ceiling effect can be observed. Especially in the private sector, we don’t see much of the female gender at higher posts. The supposed authority status given by God to man is still there. And when it comes to some physical work, of course, men are preferred to women. This is because of the masculine body of the male gender. Women should not feel offended about this. That is the Law of Nature. But otherwise, women should ignore such phenomena and continue to strive hard for survival in the corporate world. They should voice their opinion because each one of us has the right to speak. Moreover, in today’s world, the fittest only survive.
References
Moe, S. K., Shandy, D. J. (2010). Glass Ceilings and 100-hour Couples: What the Opt-out Phenomenon can teach us about work and family. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Woo, D. (2000). Glass Ceilings and Asian Americans: The New Face of Workplace Barriers. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
The US has developed many social programs to address the problem of poverty, such as programs targeting medical and social services, educational opportunities, housing, and childcare. Yet, the nation still lags behind other industrialized counties in two ways: income equality and social problems (Jansson, 2019).
Discussion
The lag in income equality can be seen from statistical data: the income inequality ratio in the US is nine to one, which is worse than in Portugal, the UK, France, Canada, Germany, and some other countries (Jansson, 2019). This ratio means that people with low incomes in America are poorer than those in other mentioned countries. A possible reason for this gap in income equality lies in American history, namely, the Gilded Age. It was a period from 1865 to 1900, during which there was a considerable gap between the poorest and the richest, and no party in the government represented the working class to defend their interests (Jansson, 2019). Because of the extreme income inequality caused by the Gilded Age, the US still lags behind other nations despite its social advocacy efforts.
Another social welfare advocacy policy in which the US performs worse than other countries is incarceration. This is one of the many social and health problems faced by Americans. Statistics show that, due to the high-income inequality ratio, the US has a higher index of health and social issues compared to other industrialized nations (Jansson, 2019). In particular, since this data indicates the problem of poverty in the US, it also implies that the incarceration rates in America are higher than in other nations because poverty and crime are interrelated (Jansson, 2019). The gap in this social issue can be attributed to the fact that, until the 20th century, virtually no policies existed to support the working class. Hence, the poverty rate remained high, and so did incarceration rates.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would advocate several social investments to reduce the disparity between the US and other countries. First, I would advocate for reducing military spending and allocating a portion of these funds to healthcare, education, job creation, and the construction of affordable houses. This measure seems justified because military expenditures in the US are considered excessive (Jansson, 2019). I would also advocate for increasing the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to reduce income inequality.
Reference
Jansson, B. S. (2019). Social welfare policy and advocacy: Advancing social justice through eight policy sectors (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
The report summarizes the approaches to impairment pain management in the view of new disability equality discourse. It is recommended to stick to specific approaches’ collaborative use to obtain a complex and effective treatment that will cover adverse consequences of impairments. Formalized pain assessment techniques, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods, and palliative care are intended to ensure the fulfillment of human rights for disability equality and will be examined further.
Problem
The problem of not a complete disability equality has become a dominant topic in international policy circles. People with memory, language, and speech deficits and consciousness alterations often do not communicate about their discomfort and pain. Such persons are less likely to be in employment because of constant pain triggers, internal lack of confidence, and social exclusion. To ensure active and full participation in society for individuals with impairments, the new disability discourse and the consideration of methods to combat painful ramifications are required.
Purpose
The traditional approach to disability policy is based on the belief that it is a deviation from normality. The new disability policy framework is a general shift from considering it a medical concern to acknowledging disability as a human rights issue. This discourse has the purpose of emphasizing the need for the replacement of an ethos of compensation for perceived abnormalities with an approach removing barriers to inclusion into society. The disability dimension will cover a wide spectrum of social and economic concerns. The facilitation of adverse consequences is the primary point that enables fulfilling the human right to be part of the society. The major group that requires specific treatment is people with cognitive disabilities that have emerged from various factors. These include neurodegenerative disorders, vascular disorders, head and blast injuries, consequences of prolonged exposure to toxicities, electrolytes, organ failure, and anoxia. All the reasons mentioned above for cognitive impairments, which result in disability, have a common trait. The presence of pain has continuous nature and represents a severe danger together with other disorders effects.
The significant part of disability equality discourse is pain management as it contributes significantly to people’s active and social lifestyle with incapacity. It is necessary to appeal to the statistics regarding individuals with impairments provided by Ireland’s government to reveal what part of the population requires the new disability equality discourse. As of the beginning of 2017, 643,131 people had a disability that is 13.5 percent or 1 in 7 of the community. Substantial attention should be paid to the impairment pain management, considering this rate’s tendency to increase. Disability reduces persons potential in learning and working as these fields of activity demand particular efforts that are challenging to be taken for people who suffer from disorders ramifications. In Ireland, the percentage of professional and managerial employees with a disability is 50 percent less in comparison to people without it. Simultaneously, the number of unskilled, unoccupied, and uneducated people with impairments is twice the number of healthy people who are not employed or left any academic unit. The purpose of the policy is to examine approaches to pain management to ensure disability equality.
Scope
Various options, what constitutes best practices in pain management that are based on expert opinions, exist. The first method is a formalized approach to pain management, assessment, and frequent reassessment/ monitoring of the patient’s state. This technique is used to measure the level of pain, conduct behavioral evaluations, and diagnose that might include painful sensations or physiological signs. Palliative care is considered as the approach for pain managing and socializing people with impairments at the same time by engaging treatment providers to be a part of patient care. Pharmacological strategies to alleviate pain are focused on the use of medication developed with this particular purpose. The last approach is the Non-pharmacological techniques of pain management, which implies physical exercises, cognitive-behavioral therapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, massage, relaxation, and distraction techniques.
Methods and Process
Options used to facilitate pain and ensure the fulfillment of human rights for disability equality are characterized by different advantages and disadvantages, which should be discussed and compared. A formalized approach to treatment is beneficial in the case of the individual’s cognitive and verbal function deviations as it enables one to evaluate the level of pain constructively. Moreover, this technique can measure the effectiveness of other methods implementation and improve communication among all caregivers that will result in better treatment outcomes. Although this approach does not provide direct pain management as the pharmacological treatment does, it is a significant concomitant approach that is successfully utilized together with other options.
Palliative care is concentrated on relieving pain and other impairments symptoms by meeting patients emotional, spiritual, and practical needs. According to a trial conducted in a single nursing home in Ireland, by incorporating a pain-management component, the palliative-care system led to decreased discomfort and fewer transfers to acute care. As well as formalized approach, this method has the minor potential of direct pain management alone but contributes significantly to socializing of people with disabilities.
Pharmacological treatment is a substantial component of pain management that is especially vital when non-pharmacological methods are not feasible. However, the implementation of drugs is followed by the danger of side effects such as sedation, impairment of cognition, gastrointestinal bleeding, and constipation. Curing with medication is more effective than other treatment methods but requires close and consistent attention to prevent its adverse consequences.
The non-pharmacological approach is centered on improving the overall state of health. This method shows a moderate direct effect on pain facilitation but is successfully implemented to reduce medications side effects. It positively influences people’s physical and mental capability with impairments and makes them more sensitive to the use of drugs. As well as palliative care, a non-pharmacological approach serves the socializing of patients and maintaining disability equality.
Recommendations
Optimal curing with medication use is both safe and effective on the condition of implementing the formalized approach to pain assessment. Although future research is necessary to support this claim constructively, non-pharmacological methods have chances to reduce potential drugs side effects. Palliative care contributes significantly to disability equality through socializing and shows the influence on a patient’s state on a psychological level that may mitigate the physical pain. It is highly recommended to consider all the options mentioned above as pain management is a systematic issue that requires a comprehensive approach to fulfill human rights on disability equality.
Action Plan
It is possible to identify several steps, which should be followed to cover the pain management system components. Firstly, it is necessary to ask health-care staff for the assessment of pain level, as it will reveal to what extent the use of medication is needed. After obtaining the pain-control plan, an individual with a disability should discuss the non-pharmacological methodologies he is allowed to perform with the treatment provider. If a patient feels alienated from society, palliative care centers should be informed to provide the necessary help. The use of the complex approach has significant chances of showing first notable outcomes after the first month of treatment, in the event of the non-pharmacological methods. Results from the use of pain medication will be visible immediately.
Despite the numerous strategies unions and other organizations have used over the years, the slow progress toward equality at work indicates that progress will only be made if the approach is altered. Governments and employers must be prepared to pursue a radical agenda to achieve positive results. Steps must be taken to ensure that labor is appropriately paid and that the current model, in which work performed predominantly by minorities is undervalued, is not perpetuated. To change this situation, leadership and advocacy must likewise be emphasized. It is crucial to build the evidence base for gender and national diversity policing as an imperative for the mutability of the structure (Peak & Madensen-Herold, 2019). Moreover, a mentoring program for female or minority personnel at all levels of police institutions should be established.
Leadership characteristics, not monetary resources, are central in the process of solving this issue. New management should address the problem comprehensively by understanding minority perspectives. A unique role should be given to breaking stereotypes and building alliances of workers who are passionate about working together to promote gender diversity and shared leadership. Leadership is central to this work, as it requires vision and a consistent rethinking of organizational culture and practice (Peak & Madensen-Herold, 2019). A code of conduct must also be adopted to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. The foremost idea is for minorities to change their perception of their role in society. There is a need to create an enabling environment for minorities to be proud to be police officers. If the conditions are acceptable, they will be interested in the work. If equality is a core value of the organizational culture of the police, recruitment will increase dramatically. Dismantling prejudice will promote the understanding that everyone is worthy of police work and that this is the primary goal of the police chief.
Reference
Peak, K. J., & Madensen-Herold, T. D. (2019). Introduction to criminal justice: Practice and process. Sage Publications.
A distinctive feature of modern American society is its differences in ethical, racial, class, gender, religion, and many other characteristics. Previously, racial and political inequality manifested itself in the form of violence against a person. Today, it does not happen so clearly; nevertheless, the problem of social inequality does exist. Tolerance and political correctness triumphed in the American media, theater, and cinema, and it would seem that the issues of inequality have been resolved (Hudson, 2016). However, the evidence shows that inequality is persistent, which is expressed in healthcare, employment, living conditions, and so on. For example, the share of the uninsured varies dramatically across races: 6.7% of whites, 7.5% of Asians, 11.1% of African Americans, and 16.2% of Hispanics were without health insurance in 2015. This racial gap worsened because of COVID-19 that caused more than 46,000 deaths of African-Americans, which is twice more than those among the White population (Fitzhugh et al., 2020). In addition, George Floyd’s murder by a police officer is a vivid example of political inequality.
This paper aims to argue that despite the existing challenges, the American society can be racially and politically equal. Although the modern American society still suffers from racial and political inequality, it is possible to achieve justice by creating coalitions, ensuring accountability, and securing appropriate funding. The study of this issue is important to modern American politics as it directly reflects the problems and opportunities of racial and ethnic minorities. Based on the relevant literature, the paper focuses on the roles of the US government and community to promote equality. Furthermore, a potential contribution of businesses as powerful actors is discussed. The ways to achieve political and racial equality are summarized in the conclusion.
Government and Community Roles
In the US, race and politics are the two most common factors of inequality. Radical individualism, capitalism, and a lack of citizen participation deteriorate this problem (Hudson, 2016). African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans are among the key disadvantaged populations that have limited access to politics, healthcare, employment, education, and other social benefits. Various studies confirm that being white provides much more opportunities, while also preventing numerous challenges. In this case, McKinsey and Company research suggests that the government should adopt a new agenda of inclusive growth that implies advancing racial equity through the economy. Chui et al. (2021) state that the closure of the racial wealth gap would increase consumption and investment in the American economy “by an additional $2 trillion to $3 trillion. That’s equivalent to 8 percent to 12 percent of US GDP” (para. 4). In other words, the leaders would also benefit from achieving racial equality in terms of economics.
White social prejudice is another challenge that threatens American democracy and creates political injustice. The existence of prejudices and perceived supremacy makes people to disregard differences and consider them as otherness, which decreases the value of democracy (Miller & Davis, 2020). However, the creation of a new culture that values all races and supports equality seems to be a viable solution to this problem. For example, when the Black Lives Matter movement began, some people claimed that all lives are important.
Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to call for addressing prejudices and mistreatment in all spheres of life. The presidency of Obama, an African-American ex-president, shows that the society is ready to changes, and equality can be achieved (Allen, 2016). Recently, Obama managed to significantly reduce the share of the uninsured due to the health care reform, which Trump is still trying to cancel unsuccessfully. Moreover, the increased pro-activeness of citizens, including protest politics, is another sign of upcoming changes and improvements in terms of political justice.
Community efforts to stabilize social and economic situations are capable of effectively countering this threat. It is also worth recalling that the methods for resolving the problem should be comprehensive and impact not only the economic, but also the political and socio-cultural aspects of the issue. The political establishment needs to be clearly aware of the increased global interdependence of the participants in the modern international system, taking all necessary measures to promote justice and improve the condition of the disadvantaged populations.
Among the steps that can be taken, there is the development of national standards and metrics to evaluate the impact of federal and local policies (Chui et al., 2021). The collaboration and creation of coalitions is a solution offered by Fitzhugh et al. (2020), who insist on organizing a key group that would control all involved stakeholders, design programs, and disseminate knowledge. In addition, funding decisions should be incorporated into racial justice considerations to support evidence-based results.
Role of Businesses
Modern processes of globalization and the activities of large companies lead to even greater stratification of society, so it is worth considering whether only governments can influence the consequences of inequality. The main issue is that the desire of corporations to raise the level of social responsibility should be taken into account as an opportunity (Fitzhugh et al., 2020). To support the initiative of organizations to do charity work, as well as to push companies to help and support socially unprotected segments of the population, the cooperation between business and social responsibility is critical. In addition to achieving a high level of profit, companies’ leaders can take care of preserving jobs, raising the skills and knowledge of their employees (Allen, 2016). It is also important to strive for justice and equality in the availability of health care and education.
Ensuring accountability of businesses provides one more opportunity of gathering data from racial equity stakeholders to evaluate their impact on racial and political justice. This statement goes in line with the challenge of the privileged position of business that is discussed by Hudson (2016), who suggests that it causes threats to democracy. While the author claims that such a position should be changed, it can also be used for combating for equality. Namely, “better ecosystems – the networks of people and capital in which businesses operate – can reduce these structural obstacles to building Black-owned business and add $290 billion in business equity” (Chui et al., 2021). Accordingly, the advancement of racial equality becomes possible due to providing equitable access to capital. As a result, the family-wealth creation would facilitate new business capabilities for racial minorities.
In turn, it should be stressed that the reputation of a company is made up of many concepts. Confidence in a company grows if it is socially-oriented as it acts as a form of competitive advantage. Therefore, the social responsibility of business ceases to be just a waste of money, but turns into an additional means of enhancing the company’s image. The problem of business participation in solving the problems of society is relevant for the US. World experience shows that the quality of life of the population and social stability largely depend on the success of the formation of a system of partnerships between private entrepreneurship, government, and civil society in social and political spheres (Allen, 2016). The effectiveness of such partnerships can be used as one more opportunity for achieving equality.
Conclusion
To conclude, several important trajectories to reduce the level of racial and political inequality can be outlined. The coordinated work of the government, companies, and citizens, as well as the social responsibility of organizations, is necessary. In addition, it is important to ensure zero tolerance for the problem of injustice and the development of citizens’ initiative in providing assistance and support to disadvantaged populations. Businesses can also significantly contribute to achieving political and racial equality by remaining aware of the needs of the minorities. As a result, the accomplishment of social justice would benefit not only disadvantaged citizens but also the government, businesses, and American society as a whole.
References
Allen, D. (2016). Equality and American democracy: Why politics trumps economics. Foreign Affairs, 95(1), 23-28.
Hudson, W. E. (2016). American democracy in peril: Eight challenges to America’s future (8th ed.). CQ Press.
Miller, S. V., & Davis, N. T. (2020). The effect of white social prejudice on support for American democracy. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 1-18.
The article selected for this argumentative paper is the Northern Star editorial under the title “Transgender Athletes Deserve Equality.” As the title implies, the authors of the article pursue the idea that transgender athletes should be given equal opportunities to participate in the divisions of genders they associate themselves with. The authors support their claim by referring to repetitive victories in the women’s division and the contribution to the overall civil rights of transgender people striving for equality. However, the author of this essay partially disagrees with the support provided for the claims in the editorial. This argumentative essay is designed to prove that equality for transgender athletes will jeopardize fairness in sports, cause bias in women’s division, and not reflect social concerns.
Unfair Implications for Cisgender Individuals’ Opportunities
The authors of the article claim that transgender athletes deserve equal representation and the right to participate in competitions in the divisions of the gender they identify themselves by referring to social structures and justice. However, such support is incomplete since it neglects the articulation of the unfair distribution of strengths among the participants, which is decisive for a proper sporting competition. Indeed, the editorial board cites Quinn, the transgender athlete who stated that they “feel sad knowing there were Olympians before me unable to live their truth because of the world” (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 4). However, living one’s truth should not become a decisive factor in altering the rules of participants distribution based on the physical attributes that are decisive in sports. It is particularly relevant for the women’s division in all kinds of sports.
Focus on Achievements in Women’s Divisions Primarily
The authors of the article use the reference to the significant sporting achievements and victories of transgender people as ground-forming support for their thesis. However, one might find such evidence incomplete and biased due to the identification of predominantly women’s divisions’ achievements. The authors state that “the Canadian Women’s Soccer team didn’t just make history by claiming their first-ever Olympic gold medal defeating Sweden,” where transgender athlete Quinn had a decisive role alongside other women transgender athletes (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 1).
Indeed, the manipulation of the victories and the promotion of the national teams in the international sporting arena creates a false picture that transgender inclusion is worthwhile and beneficial. However, the authors fail to identify the same level of achievements in the men’s division, which would have made the argument well-supported and valid. This observation reflects the social perception of the problem discussed further.
The Lack of Social Support
Another inaccuracy in support of the authors’ claims is the manipulation of the statistical data, which reflects the under-representation of transgender rights in the public domain. Indeed, according to the editorial, “only 34% of Americans support trans athletes playing on teams that match their gender identity, according to a Gallup poll from May” (Northern Star Editorial Board par. 8). Thus, the perception of the society implies that the issue of providing transgender athletes the opportunity to participate in their gender-based divisions is not tentative and should not be prioritized.
Conclusion
In summation, the analyzed editorial’s position implies significant inaccuracies in the articulation of the claims of transgender athletes in their sports careers. In particular, the authors failed to address the fairness issues implied in the unequal physical attributes of transgender and cisgender athletes. Moreover, their support was biased due to the focus on achievements in women’s divisions only, where transgender people have an advantage. Finally, the authors’ claimed urgency of the issue is not supported by statistics on public perception of the problem. Thus, one might not agree with the argument of the editorial based on the above-mentioned reasons.
Currently, the transgender and LGBTQ+ populations have received more rights and freedoms. However, discrimination persists to this day. To eradicate it, people need to introduce principles aimed at protecting vulnerable groups of the population. The principles of the struggle for the transgender and LGBTQ+ populations should include respect for the choice and self-identification of a person (Garretson, 2018).
For example, the number of genders and the right of people to identify themselves with one of them should be legally established. To do this, non-violent methods of attracting the attention of the population can be used. Women, in the struggle for equal rights, chained themselves to the gates or held peaceful rallies with posters near the administration buildings. The result was equal rights, the opportunity to vote in elections and equal pay.
In addition, another principle is the protection of the rights of vulnerable groups of the population at the legislative level and equating discrimination with a punishable crime. However, a fierce struggle with the use of force should be avoided (Garretson, 2018).
For example, the protests of African Americans that took place two years ago caused divisions in society due to cases of violence. As a result, they failed to sufficiently achieve the eradication of discrimination. Finally, another principle is to educate the public about transgender and LGBTQ+ populations. Lectures in schools and universities and freely available on the Internet can explain the essence of the movement and its importance. The Latin American population of the second half of the 20th century explained to the inhabitants of the country the importance of their culture. They refused to go to work, staged demonstrations and defended the traditions of their people by talking about them.
Moreover, the current Supreme Court is committed to overturning the rights that protect LGBTQ+. This is a direct violation of human rights, which should be considered on the world stage and have the character of gross discrimination. The principle in this case is counterclaims, a wider campaign to publicize the problem and appeal to the authorities. In this case, representatives of the movement will be able to get the opportunity to live in a society where equality is the fundamental pillar.
Reference
Garretson, J. J. (2018). The path to gay rights: How activism and coming out changed public opinion. NYU Press.
Social equality refers to a situation where all individuals in a particular society are of the same status. It is an ideal situation given that it is not practical to achieve perfect egalitarianism in any given community. The similarities in status can be regarded in terms of security, access to services offered, and equality before the law. Other aspects of this phenomenon include freedoms and property rights. Equality also means the absence of social classes. Also, it implies the absence of discrimination. All the individuals are provided with equal opportunities in life (Edsall par. 3). However, most people regard the concept is as a form of utopia. The reason is that, as already indicated, it is difficult to have such a society where all individuals have equal chances and rights.
Economic growth is closely related to social equality. It refers to a rise in market value for goods and services produced in a particular economy within a given period. In most cases, the growth is expressed as a percentage of the annual change in gross domestic product. To achieve this phenomenon, the economy must be productive. Individuals in the country must also be engaged in meaningful economic activities for growth to occur (Porter par. 9). It is for this reason that it is important for every individual to be given equal opportunities to participate in nation-building.
In this essay, I am going to analyze the relationship between social equality and economic growth. The analysis will be made in the context of an article published in the New York Times about this topic.
Social Equality and Economic Growth
As already indicated, there is a close link between the two concepts. Social equality provides individuals with equal opportunities to contribute to the growth of the economy (Krugman par. 12). Such people have equal chances to be productive. Equality also ensures that the potential of the society is fully exploited to enhance the development of the entire community. However, in spite of the apparent relationship, economic growth has been cited as a major factor behind social inequalities. The rise in economic prosperity leads to the emergence of social classes, which makes it difficult to achieve equality. The reason is that the benefits of these economic developments are not accessed by all individuals equally. As a result, people have come up with divergent views concerning the link existing between the two phenomena. Two schools of thought with different views have emerged. One of the groups supports a positive relationship between the two. They feel that social equality stimulates economic growth. On their part, the other group is of the view that economic growth impedes the achievement of social equality.
Capitalism is one of the major problems that have contributed to social inequalities in society today. The concept refers to an economic system where industries, means of production, and trade are privately owned and controlled (Fung par. 22). The players involved are charged with the responsibility of setting the prices for goods, assets, and services. The practice exposes buyers to the risk of being exploited by these market players in their bid to maximize their gains. The major concern of these investors is profit margins. They are rarely concerned with the welfare of the consumers. It is noted that the group of market players is made up of a few wealthy individuals. As a result, the system is characterized by stiff competition between producers. There is also the unfettered accumulation of capital among the investors (Fung par. 22). Wealth is controlled by a few individuals who make decisions affecting millions of people. For this reason, there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor in most of the capitalist economies (Porter par. 9).
Most of the world’s economies, such as those in the United States of America and China, have adopted capitalism. The governments in such countries advocate for free trade. As a result, they have little or no control over property rights. They also lack control over the markets. To safeguard the interests of the citizens, there is a need for government to take a more proactive role in the economy. Failure to put in place control measures leaves the citizens vulnerable to economic abuse. Exploitation by capitalists may be in the form of hiked prices of goods and services and low wages for labor (Tritch par. 17).
One of the ways through which capitalism leads to the exploitation of citizens is by encouraging the emergence of monopolies (Olivo and Sullivan 31). The formation of monopolies grants the production rights to only a few individuals. Lack of competition gives these individuals the liberty to change the prices of their goods and services at will. Also, monopolies interfere with the distribution of wealth in society. Only a few individuals can accumulate assets and other forms of capital (Fung par. 22). Other potential producers are denied the opportunity to operate. As such, the economic system continues to hinder the achievement of social equality. It has led to the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor in society (Porter par. 9).
Factors that have aggravated the situation include the aforementioned increased inequalities between the wealthy and the poor. There is a need to provide all individuals with equal opportunities. Some economists think that promoting equality would enhance economic growth compared to a system where only a few individuals are in control of production rights (Fung par. 22). There is increasing pressure on governments to promote equality to increase social welfare (Grynbaum par. 22). It is not fair to have a few extremely wealthy individuals, while the majority of the citizens languish in poverty.
At times, the information highlighting the form of relationship between social egalitarianism and development is sketchy. Different economists view social equality from varying dimensions. Regardless of the divergent views, it is important to take into consideration what seems right and fair. Social fairness aims at redistributing wealth and resources among individuals in society (Krugman par. 12). Discrimination is significantly reduced since there would be no social classes. All individuals are accorded equal chances to contribute to the economy and benefit from the same. As a result, the per capita income for the poor is likely to rise, reducing levels of poverty.
The experts and analysts who think that equality would promote economic growth also feel that social inequality leads to wastage of human potential. For example, over 40 percent of the children living in the United States of America are from poor backgrounds (Krugman par. 12). The children are not given a chance to contribute to growth in society. On the other hand, those from affluent backgrounds receive preferential treatment. The situation means that only about 60 percent of the American children are adequately empowered to exploit the available opportunities and resources. The remaining 40 percent lack the means to produce. They often end up working for those from affluent backgrounds. Only a few of them are in a position to realize their potential after many years of struggle. As a result, these individuals are not as productive as they should be (Porter par. 9). In the process, economic growth is hindered.
Some economists think that measures to promote social equality would lead to reduced economic growth (Edsall par. 4). Such strategies include imposing taxes on the affluent in society. However, such a move is likely to hurt the economy. The reason is that individuals would make little or no returns from the services they offer and the goods they produce. As a result, wealthy individuals would lose more to taxation than they would be gaining from the economic growth expected to be brought about by social equality (Krugman par. 12). Such persons are mostly successful investors. Taxation and such other measures to address inequalities would scare away these investors, reducing the economy’s total productivity in the long run. The effects of such a move are more devastating than inequality itself.
To begin with, many individuals would lose their jobs as businesses begin to shut down. The rate of unemployment would increase, taking a toll on the economy since many individuals are rendered unproductive. Per capita income would also be considerably reduced.
I find it important to have an accurate picture of the real effects of inequalities on economic growth. As stated earlier, different economists have varying opinions concerning this issue (Edsall par. 3). The scholars have come up with brilliant explanations to support their arguments. However, the effects have not been determined quantitatively. As such, the real benefits of promoting equality are not well documented.
Different words have been used to describe and define the concept of egalitarianism. Such terms include, among others, redistribution. In such discourses, the term is used to describe the process of obtaining wealth from some individuals and indirectly giving it to the poor. However, such a strategy has its evils. The situation would mean taking from the wealthy and those from high social status what is rightfully theirs (Grynbaum par. 22). In light of this, the move is likely to encounter resistance from those persons who are considered to be of high social standing in the economy. The criterion to be used in the redistribution of wealth is also a major concern. Equality must be achieved through a specific set of standards for it to be viewed as fair and transparent. The process is also very demanding. Appropriate measures need to be put in place to ensure that the resources that have been obtained from the affluent in the society are given to deserving individuals.
I have learned that the problem of social inequality forms a cycle that is hard to break. Individuals who lack the opportunity to produce and become wealthy are not in a position to empower their children. For this reason, the issue of social inequality has become a recurrent problem. It is passed from one generation to the other. The situation means that the differences between the haves and have-nots continue to increase (Krugman par. 12). Governments and other stakeholders should address this issue with the urgency it deserves. If this does not happen, there is a likelihood that the different world economies would suffer from reduced growth due to failure to fully exploit human and other resources available. Many skills and abilities are unnoticed. As a result, they are not fully utilized. The economy has to seek for such skills from other areas, a process that increases the cost of production. In light of this, social equality would go a long way in stimulating economic growth.
Great care should be taken when promoting equality between members of the society (Edsall par. 34). The move should be implemented in such a way that it is viewed by all to be in good faith. It should be geared towards benefiting the entire society. Some may argue that equality should be in terms of opportunities and not outcomes. The statement seems realistic in terms of providing all members of society with equal opportunities. Such a strategy would not be seen to be undermining any particular group of people. In any case, it would stimulate healthy competition among individuals. Such competition is important as it spurs economic growth. It is expected that all persons would work hard for them to gain from equal opportunities availed to them.
However good the statement sounds, it is not realistic. For equality to be achieved through availing equal opportunities to all, a lot of time is required (Krugman par. 12). The approach can only be used in bringing social egalitarianism to future generations. For instance, it can be used to improve the future of 40 percent of American children brought up in poor homes. It is unrealistic to think that these individuals would have equal access to opportunities, such as education, health, and jobs, as children from rich families. The children from low-income families are also likely to drop out of school. They may not complete their college education. Individuals from both poor and wealthy backgrounds may probably be allowed to attend the same schools. However, those from low-income families may lack the capacity to settle the high charges associated with learning in such institutions.
For this reason, opportunities alone would not bring about social equality. People should be empowered to contribute to the economy and improve their living standards. Giving such people opportunities is not enough. Capital and resources are needed to exploit opportunities and ideas. The poor in society lack these important factors to enhance the quality of their life. That is one of the reasons why equality has not been achieved in society (Goltz par. 16).
Conclusion
Social equality would be achieved when people reap similar outcomes from the opportunities availed to them. For this reason, the statement that we should seek to achieve equality of opportunities, as opposed to fairness in outcomes, is not valid. Inequalities in outcomes are the major reasons why social egalitarianism has not been achieved in contemporary society. People cannot have equal opportunities if they are not in a position to benefit equally. As a result, there are disparities in the outcomes obtained from opportunities availed to different members of society. That is the reason why the gap between the poor and the rich continues to increase.
The place of non-human animals in an acceptable moral system often attracts different moral views. The nonhumans lie on the borderline of human moral theories and principles; sometimes they are accorded a high moral status and other times they are denied any moral recognition (Pluhar, 1995, p. 67). Accordingly, the philosophical views on the moral standing of nonhuman animals are diverse.
The three broad categories of philosophical theories on animal moral standing include indirect theories, moral equality theories, and direct theories. Indirect theories hold that, due to lack of reason, consciousness, or autonomy, animals cannot be accorded equal moral status as humans. Arguments of Immanuel Kant and Descartes belong to this category.
In contrast, direct theories, though they accord some moral recognition to animals, they fail to accord them full moral status because of their lack of autonomy, rationality, and self-consciousness. These theories argue that animal sentience is enough reason not to harm animals.
The moral equality theories extend equal moral status for animals and humans based on the concept that, animals and human infants bear similarities in their mental and physiological capacities (Pluhar, 1995, p. 71). They refute the moral relevance of rationality, consciousness, and autonomy-qualities of being human.
This category comprises of the arguments formulated by philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer. The philosophers employ divergent perspectives in advocating for equal moral status for both human beings and animals.
Peter Singer: Equal Consideration of Interests Principle
Peter Singer has been an active advocate for nonhumans’ rights and ethics. In his article, “The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues”, Singer discusses various environmental issues in the context of nonhumans; moreover, he relates their interests to those of humans (2003, p. 191).
He attacks the argument that animals should be accorded less moral status than humans should be accorded. He argues that, according unequal consideration to animal interests will result to unequal consideration of interests of different humans, which contravenes the common claim that all humans are equal.
Consequently, Singer suggests that, the concept of equal consideration of interests as applied among human beings should apply to animals, as well. He describes the essence of this principle as; human actions involve prior moral deliberations regarding the interests of other human beings who are likely to be affected by our actions.
Singer mentions environmental issues such as environmental pollution (air and water), global warming, and destruction of animal habitats as harmful to humans and animals, as well. He argues that environmental issues should be addressed from the perspective of nonhuman’s interests or feelings (2003, p. 193).
He contends that nonhumans such as birds and mammals have sentience; they can feel pain or suffering, as they possess a similar nervous system as humans. Therefore, these animals have interests that humans must recognize and respect just as people respect the interests of others because of their sentience and consciousness.
Additionally, people employ inhumane methods in slaughtering, transporting, and raising animals for meat. Singer argues that, this inhumane treatment has no moral basis as it inflicts pain and suffering to animals. Humans have a moral obligation to avert pain and suffering of other people and nonhuman animals (2003, p. 197).
Singer contends that, the maxim of equal treatment of concerns should be employed to both humans and nonhumans. He suggests that equal consideration “does not imply treating nonhumans equally but rather considering the interests of humans and nonhumans equally” (2003, p. 193).
In other words, humans must consider the total effect of their action(s) on all groups of individuals before making the decision. For instance, Singer argues that, between a dog and a human being, a decision must be made to save the human as the human and his/her family will undergo more suffering than the dog. In this regard, this decision must consider the interests of the dog and the human from an equal front.
According to Singer, often, humans disregard the interests of animals in a bid to satisfy their own interests. As such, they fail to accord equal consideration to the pain and suffering of animals. To emphasize this, he gives an example of mass poisoning of crop pests such as rabbits with cyanide.
Although he subscribes to the need for pest control, he contends that it should be humane and considerate of the interests of the animal pests. From this perspective, Singer argues that, since animals can suffer, people should accord them similar treatment as accorded to other humans.
People classify animals into species rather than as individuals. Singer calls this tendency speciesism, which he points out, is similar to the idea of racism. In the slavery era, the slave owners failed to consider the interests of the slaves and instead treated them as nonhumans; a practice, which Singer claims, is accorded to nonhumans today.
He compares speciesism to racism; both involve a practice where people perceive themselves as superior to a given race or species. He argues that people should reject speceisism for the same reasons they reject racism. He reasons that speceisism amounts to sacrificing of the nonhuman’s interests to satisfy the human interests; which is not morally defensible.
Tom Regan and the Animal Rights
Tom Regan’s article, “Animal Rights: What is in a Name”, argues that animals, just like humans, have rights. Regan, like Singer, attacks the indirect moral theories and the unequal status theories, which infer that only humans have rights.
He attempts to discredit the concept that equal moral status should be accorded on Utilitarian grounds. He argues that, the moral status should be based on rights rather than Utilitarian concepts. Regan’s argument relies on the principle of inherent value. According to Regan, “both human and animals have inherent value and as such have rights” (2004), p.122).
The inherent value of a being means that, it must be accorded respect; showing respect implies not using it as a means to our ends rather such a being should be considered an end in itself. This means that inherent value confers a being with rights.
Regan questions the basis for human rights. He rejects the common claim that a being must have the capacity to pursue its interests based on the conception of rights as posited under the marginal cases arguments (2004, p. 123). Marginal cases of humanity possess rights founded on humans being moral agents (DeGrazia, 1996, p. 78).
According to Regan, the only thing that confers marginal cases with moral rights similar to normal human beings is the “subject-of-a-life” (2004, p. 125). He contends that a subject-of-a-life being “has desires, memory, perceptions, emotional feelings (pain and pleasure), interests as well as a conception of the future” (2004, p. 128).
The subject-of-a-life is the basis of human rights; however, according to Regan, animals have this property as well and as such deserve animal rights.
The Distinction between the Two Arguments
Although Regan’s position appears similar to Singer’s position with regard to recognition of the interests/rights of animals, Regan largely discredits Singer’s Utilitarian approach. Singer posits that, we should ensure equal consideration of the interests of humans and nonhuman animals in our deliberations.
However, Regan indicates that this can be erroneous; the central focus is the individual with interests, not the interests themselves. Thus, by solely focusing on the interests, immoral actions can be done on Utilitarian grounds. Regan believes that a being with inherent value cannot serve as a means to an end but rather as an end unto itself.
However, this does not imply that rights are absolute in Regan’s view. Instead, when rights conflict, then one party’s rights may be denied priority. While singer contends that the level of suffering or pain takes determines whose rights must be overridden, Regan argues that in circumstances where rights of different parties (human and nonhuman) conflict, attempts must be made to minimize the effects.
However, Regan argues that humans should not violate another individual’s right merely because, by doing so, everyone will benefit. In Regan’s view, this action is not permissible as it implies sacrificing individual rights for utility. In contrast, Singer holds the opposite view; the violation of another individual’s interests is permissible in the broader context of the other’s interests.
In brief, Regan’s argument with regard to animal rights revolves around the ‘inherent value’ concept while Singer contends for the equal consideration of interests of humans and nonhumans. Regan holds the view that raising animals for human food is simply treating them as means to our ends.
Thus, according to Regan, humans should not rear animals for food, scientific experimentation, or hunting as a sport. In contrast, Singer argues for a humane treatment of animals when raising or slaughtering them for food with respect to human interests versus animal interests.
Therefore, from Singer’s perspective, humans must consider the effects and interests of all individuals (humans and animals) in their deliberations before making any decision.
Regan Vs Singer’s Perspective
I think Singer supported his arguments remarkably well throughout his article. In particular, his argument that mammals and birds are prone to pain and suffering subjected by humans and that, as humans, we should consider them as individuals, was most convincing. Additionally, it is evident that exploitation of the environment for economic purposes has adverse impacts on humans and nonhuman animals.
As such, we should take into account the interests of animals, as they are part of a self-sustaining natural system. Indeed, mammals and birds have sentience and feel pain as humans. However, I think Singer’s argument that all nonhuman animals (reptiles, fish, and amphibians) have the same level of consciousness is not convincing.
While these animals may bear a similar nervous system as humans, it is nevertheless, less developed and, as a result, cannot exhibit a similar level of consciousness or suffering as humans or birds and mammals do.
Singer’s argument on speceisism is an appealing one especially where he compares it to racism. In my opinion, it is evident that nonhuman animals cannot speak or think like humans. In contrast, all human races can think and have speech, and thus, racism is not comparable to speceisism.
Additionally, Singer argues that, the pain and suffering underwent by nonhumans is equal to that of humans, but, pain or suffering is not measurable and from a human perspective, humans undergo more pain than animals due to their developed sensory system.
In contrast, Regan presents and supports the “inherent value” concept particularly well as a basis for his argument that animals have rights like humans. In my opinion, his arguments that moral standing is based on rights, not on Utilitarian concepts, is most convincing. By according a being with ‘inherent value’ respect, then we cannot use it as a means to justify our ends.
Additionally, his disapproval of the notion that the capacity to pursue individual rights qualifies a being for the recognition of its rights is riveting. I think his use of marginal cases in arguing that the subject-of-a-life is what confers marginal cases moral rights and on that basis, animals should be accorded rights, lends his argument more weight.
From the perspective of not using animals as means to justify our ends, I think Regan convincingly argues that, rearing animals for food (meat) is morally wrong as it contravenes their fundamental rights. Singer, on the other hand, in my opinion, is not convincing especially with regard to humane treatment of animals when raising, transporting, and slaughtering them.
In my opinion, devising humane ways to raise or transport animals as well as the process will allow people to continue eating meat. Thus, Singer’s argument does little to convince society to stop meat eating compared to Regan’s argument.
Conclusion
Moral equality theories recognize that the nonhuman animals have equal rights/interests just like humans. Singer articulates his argument on the principle of equal consideration of interests; where both humans and animals (birds and mammals) must be accorded equal interests with regard to the environment.
Regan, on the other hand, relies on the concept of inherent value to argue that, utilizing animals as means to our ends is morally wrong as it denies them their rights. In my opinion, Regan presents a more convincing argument than Singer does as he objects to raising animals purposely for food.
Reference List
DeGrazia, D. (1996). Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pluhar, E. (1995). Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Durham: Duke University Press.
Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights: What is in a Name. Berkeley: University Of California Press.
Singer, P. (2003). Not for Humans Only: The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues. Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, pp. 191–206.
Equality of opportunity is a popular political idea that attenuates that people should have a level playing ground where people can compete for positions and advantaged offices in society. The political class promises the citizens pursuance of equality of opportunity by creating jobs and protecting them, among others. However, I concur with Matthews (2015) that the idea needs to be more coherent and achievable in the real world because it fails to consider factors that perpetuate societal inequality.
Societal disparities are associated with different factors, some of which are genetically acquired. Matthews (2015) indicates that genetic, environmental, and poverty factors play a significant role in the experienced social inequalities. For instance, I have observed that children from areas with high levels of lead exposure have low IQs, which reduces their capacity to concentrate and perform academically and at a job. Such factor increases their chances to continue languishing in poverty even after being given equal opportunity for acquiring education (Etzioni, 2002). Establishing good life for all is paramount to the unrealistic idea of equality of opportunity.
Policies developed by the political class to pursue equality of opportunity distract society from addressing the issues that contribute to the inequalities, depriving people of good life regardless of their social class. For instance, an opportunity for all students to join colleges does not mean that all will excel and secure good employment because their genetic makeup and family background influence their performance in different subjects (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). People desire fairness in the distribution of income and wealth and equality, a distractive political idea (Bloom, 2018). Indeed, the government can strive to achieve equality of opportunity and effectively protect rights for all (Lincoln, 1994). However, the ability to grab and utilize those opportunities differs due to genetic and environmental factors, leading to disparities between those who do and do not succeed.
Therefore, inequality through fairness in the redistribution of resources is an effective approach to achieving a good society. Thus, the government should shift its goal from pursuing equality for opportunities to establishing a good life for all, making everyone feel better, regardless of their social class.
