Opinion
By Rene Lambert
In the American Declaration of Independence that framed the backbone and official direction of America, it is proclaimed by the forefathers of this nation that “[they held] these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
At the time when this was being penned, as the United States gained its independence from Great Britain, there were only a certain population of people who were said to have had immediate benefit of this new proclamation in America. It is no surprise that in the era of the Revolutionary War, the United States of America only recognized the rights of white men, namely with wealth in the new found nation of America. Today, it is evident that men and women throughout the years have fought to make it known that they too are a part of independent America. This especially includes people and people groups who are said to be of the minority population in these United States. By banding together to move forward, some if not most minority groups have been able to attain these unalienable rights even in the face of opposition.
What if, however, people of minority groups never had to fight so hard because there was more thoroughly codified into law an ethical framework that lifts everyone up in order to leave none behind? Wouldn't this be a definite inclusion of all men and women: recognizing their being created equal? The application of Kantian Ethics to racial relations across various areas of American society can set society on a better trajectory for the future. The main areas of society that can benefit greatly from the practice of Kantian Ethics are education, economics, faith-based relations, and political influences.
Kantian Ethics, the creation of German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), is the standpoint in moral philosophy that everyone in society should be treated equally and with respect—based simply but firmly on the fact that they are human beings. The ethical framework comprises a vision of a universal standard of living, which is founded on the simplicity, through one's sense of duty, of meeting everyone at their need—regardless of personal background. In the context of America, this would certainly include treating everyone as equal regardless of their status—or the lack thereof—in society. In the United States of America, the education and schooling opportunities one receives are primarily based on where one lives and how much wealth that each individual's family has to send them to the right schools and other facilities for personal development and enrichment.
Continuing that observation, though, there are neighborhoods in America where schools and other facilities for learning are so underfunded that children and adolescents hardly see a future where education is concerned. They are stifled by the lack of resources available to them. At the same time, there may be students in another town or county not too far away from them who may have gone to schools with ample resources and learning opportunities that were never shared with the students who were undeserved by the education system.
It is no secret that most Americans of European descent are disproportionately more wealthy than the average population of people of African descent, or other minority ethnic populations. Not very long ago, in 1954, African Americans and people of other minority groups were finally given the right to go to school with white children. Prior to this, white children and young adults were able to go to school and obtain the education required that would propel them forward in life. Generations of white children, adolescents and young adults—namely males—were exposed to education at a greater momentum. If indeed Kantian Ethics were to be applied to wealth disparity in the United States, there would be a way to ensure that everyone in society who had enormous wealth would be mandated and in some ways rewarded for sharing their wealth with people who had significantly less than them by means of a thoroughly clear and thought-out government policy. As a governing body, the leadership of the country could set aside a fund system to collect a certain amount of money from individuals who have a specific amount of wealth. This amount of money could be then distributed to families who earn below a certain margin of income. The approach would not only strictly be based on income, but also upon short- and long-term goals of a family or individual.
3 / 6
However, one enormous irony of desiring to implement Kantian Ethics in a society such as America is the fact that Immanuel Kant was a racist who would himself perhaps be against this idea (given our multiracial society). He did not believe that people who were not fully white should benefit from equality, equity, and inclusion in society. If he were to implement this plan in society, it would unsurprisingly exclude people of color and other minority groups, unless there would be radical protests from these groups. Yet, would those in power even listen? I think not, unless progressive minds were in positions of leadership. This goes to show how deeply embedded racism is in societies of Western European origin such as the US.
For a country arguably built at least largely upon the inspiration of Judeo-Christian principles, one might think that these values and ideologies would have preeminence over how citizens govern themselves and relate to others. One of the fundamental precepts of Christianity is treating one another with dignity and kindness. . .even if the other party may think, look, believe, or love differently than you. By no means am I saying that we should not live up to the standard of our conviction—yet it is important to be able to coexist in a world where diversity is prominent. Kantian Ethics would certainly suit this course of ideology—because of its strong emphasis on individualism and autonomy—yet the question might then become, “Would every single person benefit from these values?” I submit that if the United States were truly and unapologetically inspired by the core of biblical principles, its leaders would not choose to favor one religious group over another. In a nonracist or non-xenophobic version of a Kantian society, everyone would be taught to love and accept everyone on the basis of who they are as human beings.
At the head of every nation is a guaranteed governmental body. The determining factor for whether citizens of that nation live in fairness and justice centers on whether or not their leaders are a true proxy and voice for the people they are legally representing in government. Throughout the history of the United States, many citizens have fought to have a voice in society, even if it was through political representation. Representation achieved by putting up resistance to a particular way of order, however, should reveal and make it evident that this was not how it was designed to be originally. Society did not see everyone as equal and worthy of having a voice. Kantian Ethics, if applied justly, however, would ensure that everyone regardless of identity would have their voices heard in the governance of society. This would be regardless of race, gender, disability or the lack thereof, national background, and/or anything else that would be an identifying mark of a human being.
Diversity in society matters because of the ways in which we can learn from each other. If the world was all the same without diversity, it would certainly take away from the unalienable rights that human beings have to be individuals and make the choices they make. Though humanity may not agree on everything as it relates to how its members are to live in this world, it is imperative that we treat each individual with the respect and dignity that they deserve. “This land was made for you and me.” (—Woody Guthrie)
Rene Lambert is a sophomore at CT State Manchester, and fulfilled part of her studies at CT State Tunxis this fall. Separate from her studies, she is also a member of the Connecticut Mirror's Community Editorial Board.
コメント