People tend to take for granted all of the basic freedoms and rights that they have.
This is especially the case for people, including myself, living in the United States. Being that I was born and raised in America I personally can't relate or truly understand how the Muslim citizens of France must feel with the banning of religious garbs. In this paper I will be discussing the background, two theories and how they can be applied, and why the banning of religious clothing should be repealed. The two theories that I am going to apply to this real life example will be both libertarianism and utilitarianism. Over the past two decades the French have made some very controversial decisions in regards to their banning of religious garbs. In 2004, …show more content…
The central thesis of this theory is that individuals have rights, and neither persons nor groups may violate them. Society also has to respect these rights. As shown in the Minimal State example libertarians reject three types of policies. I will briefly discuss two of them. The first being no paternalism, opposing laws to protect people from harming themselves (Sandel 60). The second policy being no redistribution of wealth. People shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes to help people that are less fortunate (Sandel 60). They can’t do something without these people’s consent, it is violating their libertarian rights. Going off of talking about money, Michael Jordan’s story also came up. He would make roughly thirty-one million dollars in a given season. Now some people think that he should pay higher taxes and give money. Why should he have to give back the money that he earned? He did not give his consent for them to take his money and money and redistribute it to people in need. His salary is that high because it is based off of how many people buy tickets to go to the game. In simple terms he is not forcing anyone to buy tickets with a gun to the head. People just think so highly of his game that is why they are willing to pay tickets to see him. A third example of libertarianism can be from the selling kidneys example. A man sold his first kidney but when he tried to sell his second kidney the government …show more content…
Libertarianism is more focused on what is best for an individual and how no one can violate their rights whereas utilitarianism is for the better of all people as a collective group. For libertarianism in this specific case the Muslims in France have not given their consent. So since they aren't allowed to wear their religious hijabs and burqas because the government said so that is a violation of their rights. Just because muslims are a minority in that country it shouldn't mean that they cant freely practice their religion. For utilitarianism, the government is doing what is best for the the country as a whole. In their private schools they banned religious garbs and symbols because it opposes a majority of the students beliefs. Then the government banned face coverings because it was a security risk to the rest of the people because the women under the face coverings cant properly be identified. For the burkinis, the French wanted Secularism or separation of state and
This is especially the case for people, including myself, living in the United States. Being that I was born and raised in America I personally can't relate or truly understand how the Muslim citizens of France must feel with the banning of religious garbs. In this paper I will be discussing the background, two theories and how they can be applied, and why the banning of religious clothing should be repealed. The two theories that I am going to apply to this real life example will be both libertarianism and utilitarianism. Over the past two decades the French have made some very controversial decisions in regards to their banning of religious garbs. In 2004, …show more content…
The central thesis of this theory is that individuals have rights, and neither persons nor groups may violate them. Society also has to respect these rights. As shown in the Minimal State example libertarians reject three types of policies. I will briefly discuss two of them. The first being no paternalism, opposing laws to protect people from harming themselves (Sandel 60). The second policy being no redistribution of wealth. People shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes to help people that are less fortunate (Sandel 60). They can’t do something without these people’s consent, it is violating their libertarian rights. Going off of talking about money, Michael Jordan’s story also came up. He would make roughly thirty-one million dollars in a given season. Now some people think that he should pay higher taxes and give money. Why should he have to give back the money that he earned? He did not give his consent for them to take his money and money and redistribute it to people in need. His salary is that high because it is based off of how many people buy tickets to go to the game. In simple terms he is not forcing anyone to buy tickets with a gun to the head. People just think so highly of his game that is why they are willing to pay tickets to see him. A third example of libertarianism can be from the selling kidneys example. A man sold his first kidney but when he tried to sell his second kidney the government …show more content…
Libertarianism is more focused on what is best for an individual and how no one can violate their rights whereas utilitarianism is for the better of all people as a collective group. For libertarianism in this specific case the Muslims in France have not given their consent. So since they aren't allowed to wear their religious hijabs and burqas because the government said so that is a violation of their rights. Just because muslims are a minority in that country it shouldn't mean that they cant freely practice their religion. For utilitarianism, the government is doing what is best for the the country as a whole. In their private schools they banned religious garbs and symbols because it opposes a majority of the students beliefs. Then the government banned face coverings because it was a security risk to the rest of the people because the women under the face coverings cant properly be identified. For the burkinis, the French wanted Secularism or separation of state and