Civil liberty and Covid-19

Meant that for your previous post @Greeneyedgirl.

Thanks @Greeneyedgirl.
I think the expression for your last observation is"educated beyond their intelligence"

That was an interesting YouTube illustration GrannyLaine and does show how inequality and lack of opportunity can start very early.

It is easy to be judgemental about poor choices some make during their lifetime, and their failure to grasp opportunities, but early disadvantage can have a lasting effect, in so many ways.

Psychologically for example, lack of self belief, poor self esteem, lack of confidence, poor language and communication skills, and sheer prejudice can be very damaging, and can result in lack of motivation, even in the brightest of people.

You only have to notice how many (not all of course) public school kids often appear to have a self confidence disproportionate to their abilities, and often exude a sense of entitlement.

Who's arguing for equality of outcome?

Thanks Baggs, the link illustrates what affects people's starting points in a really clear way. I agree with the points you make.

That is an interesting illustration, grannylaine. It's true people don't start from the same line and I have not and would not argue otherwise, but that does not demolish the argument that helping people to help themselves—e.g. in the first instance by teaching them all to read and write—does not make a positive difference. Nor does it demolish the argument that trying to provide equal opportunities is a good thing to do even when, because some people are more successful than others (perhaps, say, because of high intelligence or a strong work ethic), their offspring have an innate advantage. Giving up on the left behind is not what I'm arguing for.

Nor am I saying that the current system is perfect. I am arguing that aiming for equal outcomes is daft, mainly because it's impossible. People, as I said before, are not all the same and don't have the same wants once basics are covered, so even from an equal starting point there will still be inequality. Not all inequality is bad. Some (please note that word 'some'; it's important) of it is just diversity resulting from personality differences and different choices that people have made during their lives.

I don’t often find myself agreeing with you lemon but I do today. Having watched the programme on South Korea, who was hit early on with Covid19 and has a big population and few deaths, I was impressed with their Track and Trace system.

As you said this would be temporary measure and worth it saving thousands of lives. Just because a few get uppity about their civil liberties does not count against those who stand to lose their lives.

Reading the comments about babies ( from Grans who have young DGC) who are worried about their immune systems, yes, I understand those concerns.However, in the past, babies came into contact with all sorts of germs and many were very ill or died as a result of infections. As a way of boosting immune systems for those ‘healthy’ strong babies, it would have been good to have had plenty of contact with germs but
not so for the weaker ones.The survival of the fittest in action.
That’s not how we look after our societies though.
We try and cut down sources of infection for all babies if we can.
I’m with the posters who agree that a few civil liberties going awol for the overall good of society now and again, isn’t a bad thing.We know it’s only for a short time.

Baggs I read your post (06.25) with interest and remembered this really good illustration of how inequality of opportunity affects how we move forward in life

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJAgPF5FNTQ

Baggs I checked quite recently how many free OU courses there are which lead to anything meaningful. I know there are some standalone modules, mainly for people without basic skills, but nothing which have been suitable for the person I was looking for. They're a money maker for the providers, without adding value for the person taking the courses.

It is widely agreed that Inequality has increased dramatically in Britain throughout the last four decades but for that situation to change action has been taken.

The Equality Act 2010 brought forward an increase in equal opportunity throughout many aspects of life and has become a Bill that has changed many poor but central attitudes that existed prior to the Act coming into force.

However, many fail to take advantage of the Equality Act even when using the resources given to all in the legislation would enable them to seek redress for unequal treatment which often becomes present in their lives.

By example to the above, we often witness on this forum where unequal treatment or a lack of equal opportunity in any persons working life is not met with the vigour and resourcefulness that the Equality Act enables any employee to bring to the situation. Indeed, we often see a forum member begin a thread asking should they take a risk of raising poor treatment in their workplace with their direct line manager.

The Fairness at Work Act 1998 was encompassed into the Equality Act in 2010 and that gives all employed persons in Britain a laid down set procedure which they can use to bring forward grievances in employment situations without fear of retaliatory action being taken against them by their employer.

However, very many employed people never make use of the above legislation and instead ether tolerate unfairness and lack of equal opportunity in their employment, or resign their position which is often exactly what a poor employer wishes to happen.

I cite the above only to demonstrate a common lack of fairness in our society. There are many other widespread situations in all other aspects of life, outside of employment, that lack of equal opportunity is not challenged with the determination that any number of situations should be.

It would seem that many in Britain today lack the will to fight lack of equal opportunity even when the tools to combat such is readily at hand.

What do people mean by equality? People are quite obviously not equal in, for example, personal drive or intelligence, why would one expect them to be equal in other respects?

Fairness is another matter. There can be fairness without there being total equality.

I still think equality of opportunity is the key to allowing people to reach their full potential, or at least aim for it. I also think that most schools try to help all children achieve as much as possible. This is not to say all schools are great, just that I think the underlying principle of providing equality of opportunity is fundamental in education.

growstuff, have you checked recently how many free OU courses there are?

I think some of the reactions to Covid-19 restrictions are interesting, especially as they're becoming politicised and people are tending to fall into different camps.

So much for "the science" eh?

Indeed they are … and no need to apologise.

The whole libertarian versus the state argument is one which interests me, especially considering what is going on in the US and is creeping into the mainstream here.

I guess most people don't even bother about such concepts. That's before one even starts on personal values and how they influence political beliefs.

This thread seems to have wandered away from a discussion about liberty. Fair enough, but I think it's a bit of a shame.

Sorry, growstuff. They're equally interesting topics, I think...

Baggs Have you checked recently out how much Open University courses cost?

I don't think most people interpret equality of opportunity so negatively

No, I wouldn't have done, either, but when I started thinking about it, if 'the veil of ignorance' is going to be associated with 'the left' and 'leftwing' aspiration for justice and equality, what moral philosophy belongs to the 'right'? Does the 'right' have a moral philosophy?

PPS. Most people don't care as long as they and the people they know are OK.

Equality is a whole different argument. Equality and liberty do not equate. Meritocracy is a different spanner in the works.

Somehow or other, most Western nations have managed to maintain a balance between all sorts of conflicting ideologies and philosophies, but every so often the tensions grind against each other like tectonic plates and that's what we're seeing at the moment.

PS. Don't start me on the concept of democracy! It's become a sacred cow, but I wonder how many people really understand its implications for equality.

This thread seems to have wandered away from a discussion about liberty. Fair enough, but I think it's a bit of a shame. For thousands of years, a tension has been recognised between liberty of the individual and the needs of a society. There's also conflict between the "freedom of the individual to do …" and "liberty from coercion". The two concepts are confused and both are human ideologies anyway.

The US had a president who was genetically as white as he was black. Why is he always referred to as black?

As I see it, if from a 'an original (theoretical) position' if we did not know, what gender or ethnicity we would be in society. What natural abilities, disabled or able bodied, healthy or sick. intelligent, rich or poor, young or old, for example, what would we choose society be like?

As it would be a lottery I can't imagine anyone would want to opt for say the type of unequal society we have at present.

In our society so much depends on accident of birth as to whether you can make the most of opportunities in life, and I'm not just thinking of wealth. We can all point to people who seem to have done well despite the odds, but we clearly do not start from the same position.

Surely if we could opt for the type of society with a fairer system of opportunity and redistribution, it would be the sensible choice from behind the 'Veil of Ignorance'?

Theoretical but could form the basis of a social contract that was just to all.

My parents, both from working class homes, were given school and university opportunities. My grandfather, a post office worker, got an opportunity (or pursued it, perhaps) to do an external university degree and became an LEA lecturer.

I suspect that not everyone pursues opportunities with the same vigour.

The OU holds out opportunities for people who haven't been all that successful at school for whatever reason.

And so on.

By unthinkable I mean it wouldn't have happened.