Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

?
Lv 6
? asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 8 years ago

What is the diving line between Rights and Responsibilities / Restraints in public life?

We saw the rise of freedom and liberty with the movements against colonialism, despotism, apartheid etc whose eventual success triggered swift spread of liberal views beyond our expected limits and reaching out - not just to the deprived, the exploited sections, but - to all sections of people who were /are not subject of any discrimination or deprivations too, to assert uncontrolled freedom - breaking away from the past era of 'discipline' totally!

School children carrying weapons, flaunting terror acts as bravery and adult material as entertainment.. in films, journals.. websites (clandestinely in the early days and later liberally in all

possible ways).. The rise of violence against children and women, particularly outraging their modesty are often traced to the lack of control over crossing of limits of natural restraint to protect the honour of other members of society...

If any institution or thinker spoke of ethical training in schools and colleges (not religious education) or control of media or suggest sober dress code for the vulnerable sections, the liberal outfits rush to streets crying foul and charging the well meaning administration of 'moral policing' or whatever! While archaic punishments like lashing convicts by whips continue in some parts of the world, the ultra liberal outfits rule the more liberal societies, fueling more crimes to torment society in effect due to overdose of freedom. The increase in crimes against children and women are sure signes of a society journeying to the uncivilised Eras fast according to shrewd thinkers..

I may not be understood the way I tried to put my perceptions, but what is your take on this trend anyway? Please share your considered views in as civil and cool headed way as possible! Thank you for your times!

Update:

Edit: sorry I left the 2nd 'd' in the key word in the caption! We omit many critical things in our well conceived ideas for sure, not just in spelling.. so blast me for any howlers you find in expression or logic as well. thanks.

Update 2:

hello GB thank you for the scholarly answer. It is an excellent exposition of the defining line (rather than dividing line) between the right (positive) and wrong (-) liberty. But the perception of the good and bad (value system) is now in dispute, since the good to a thief (pervert / evil geniuses) may be serious wrong to society, while a perceived social good may be a danger to some person / group! A protective restriction in imports was considered OK (good) for a developing economy two decades ago while the WTO had brought in the pernicious concept of ''level playing field'' for the rich and poor nations..

I just gave some safe examples, trying to avoid more controversial transgressions of ''real good''. Jesus said that it was ok to sacrifice an individual for the good of a family, a family for the good of the village, a village for the sake of larger good of a country.. A surgeon cuts the healthy tissues to gain access to a diseased part for its rem

Update 3:

continued...

A surgeon cuts the healthy tissues to gain access to a diseased part for its removal. The damage to the healthy tissue was incidental and unavoidable.

In a scarcity season, the head-end territory should not impound all the water.in an inter state river, but share a part of it in some proportion with the tail end territory, foregoing the full benefit of water for its own (like Karnataka does!)

you can see the following link about the movie 999 story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_999

Thanks for your detailed response.

Update 4:

thank you Poptort for the info. It's indeed a great service to help people find immediate / quick advice on legal issues. By the by do you specialise in Indian Central / State laws only or beyond in the statutes of western / Islamic nations too? I shall surely visit your blog and use it whenever I need.

But here I had raised the subject more in relation to people's understanding of the 'line' as I had explained how some groups insist on their own dogged 'rules' disregarding the rule of law. The Indian (Central /Delhi) Govts took many months to take conginizance of a sedition speech by a prominent Social worker (as they call themselves) right at Delhi...!

So people's - particularly powerful groups' - views do bring a pressure on (diffident) Govts too!

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Gorki B
    8 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Sir, liberty is not a value neutral concept. It has been classified as Positive liberty and Negative liberty. -ive liberty refers to complete absence of constrains, like the one in post feudal liberal Europeon societies which talked about a minimalist state and private property, the fruit of individual labour. For them, everyone started equally and hence there should be no interference on part of the state if some amassed wealth and some stayed in penury.

    Positive liberty had greater ethical and moral connotations attached to it. It solicits interference for the betterment of society and its people. There are rules and laws. It aims at fulfillment of the needs of people irrespective of their class status. Unlike in -ive liberty where I'm free only if I am allowed to do anything I want, be it robbing, murdering, treachery or arson, positive liberty clearly defines what I am entitled to do based on what is morally right or wrong. I have complete liberty on self regarding actions such as freedon to choose a career, deciding my life partner but I must keep in mind other regarding actions, which means my acts must not harm others. A criminal's liberty to murder ain't justified as it violates the liberty of the victim.

    Speech is a powerful tool. To assume that speech unlike actions does not have the capacity to harm is wrong. Words shape our judgement. If we are continuosly fed a wrong belief/ideal, we tend to label it as correct and become biased. If I told day in and day out that communal violence is just, I will believe it is just. Millian Harm Principle states that speech(uttering or writing) which poses any harm (physical or psychological) on a particular community/person etc must be censored. Therefore to brook an Owaisi exuding communal venom or misogynist demeaning feminity or a racist insulting the Afro Americans would be unacceptable.

    But the state has become extremely intolerant to even an iota of dissent. For example, Ashish Nandy, a famous sociologist made certain remarks in the jaipur lierature fest about a community which were research based and totally harmless, but was made to leave because of the hue and cry created by the community members and the state meekly kowtowed before it.

    It is believed that Ayatollah Khomeni, who issued a fatwa against salman rushdie, did not even read the SatanicVersus. The TN govt banned a movie called Dam 999 (Or 666?!) which showed how the natives were banished and not aptly rehabilitated when the hydro project was underway.

    Restrictions are acceptable if they are just but to raise the baton/silence the people for every small happening defeats the purpose of a healthy democracy.

    EDIT: Sir, morality is also subjective. It is based on the context/milieu of the individual. What is taken into consideration is the general will of the people. Since the general will decides what is right or wrong (through laws/rules et al) punishment on those grounds is justified.

    The other example you give is the Utilitarian principle which says "maximum benefit for the maximum number of people" But this concept is often misunderstood too. Sacrificing an innocent being under the pretext of benefitting large number of people is not appropriate.

    I had fumbled with details about the movie. I recalled it as being anti state, so commented thus. I was wrong with my facts. Sorry about that.

    Have a great day!

    Source(s): -GB
  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Sir please understand and explain to us the dividing like between "Mobocracy" versus "Democracy".

    Many countries got freedom while people are unprepared for total freedom . Freedom fighters were on roads, committed "violations of law"and glorified violence .The leaders of freedom fighters occupied important posts after freedom without teaching the followers any difference between rights and responsibilities.

    Revolutions beget dictatorships. Civil wars can not result in "civil peace "

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.