Right and inequality in relation to disability

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
Column: 'I don't have the same civil rights as other Irish women. I have a disability'

I don't have the same civil rights as other Irish women. I have a disability.
...
We are going to shine a spotlight on the inequality we experience, but more importantly, we want to tell people that we have the solution and we want people to listen to us
I'll start by saying that I'm convinced by the writer's argument that personal supports can unlock the potential of disabled people to deliver more on balance to society than purely "being cared for".

But from a philosophical point of view I'm of the "nonsense on stilts" view regarding much of what passes for human rights claims, and only partly moved by inequality arguments. Simply put:
- Asserting a right beyond the most basic individual freedoms is nothing more than an emotional assertion that "the state should provide for me". This needs a different philosophical underpinning, but often these days the assertion of a right is considered sufficient justification
- In the case of disability, inequality is sadly and simply a fact. The inequality itself cannot be erased. The effects of disability can be mitigated or minimised through positive action but that is a different matter.

My point? The language of rights and inequality has become misused and will ultimately counter-productive as people see it as an emotive way of shoe-horning additional burdens onto the state.

This woman writing argues well that on a consequential basis support for her is justified, and indeed says it in the quote above ("we have the solution and we want people to listen to us"). But the language of rights and inequality is ultimately divisive.
 


talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
Column: 'I don't have the same civil rights as other Irish women. I have a disability'



I'll start by saying that I'm convinced by the writer's argument that personal supports can unlock the potential of disabled people to deliver more on balance to society than purely "being cared for".

But from a philosophical point of view I'm of the "nonsense on stilts" view regarding much of what passes for human rights claims, and only partly moved by inequality arguments. Simply put:
- Asserting a right beyond the most basic individual freedoms is nothing more than an emotional assertion that "the state should provide for me". This needs a different philosophical underpinning, but often these days the assertion of a right is considered sufficient justification
- In the case of disability, inequality is sadly and simply a fact. The inequality itself cannot be erased. The effects of disability can be mitigated or minimised through positive action but that is a different matter.

My point? The language of rights and inequality has become misused and will ultimately counter-productive as people see it as an emotive way of shoe-horning additional burdens onto the state.

This woman writing argues well that on a consequential basis support for her is justified, and indeed says it in the quote above ("we have the solution and we want people to listen to us"). But the language of rights and inequality is ultimately divisive.
Disabled people want to get "as of right", as a right, the services from the state that would put them as far as possible in the same position as someone who isn't disabled. And in so far as we can, resources permitting, we should strive for that. But I don't believe this should be enshrined legally or constitutionally as a "right". That would put the needs of disabled people far above for instance the "rights" of cancer sufferers, who don't actually have a "right" to the optimum treatment (treatment that would put them as far as possible in the same situation as people who are not suffering from cancer), they can only access what treatment the state can afford, in the context of budgetary constraints, other priorities (e.g. education), etc. I don't think it is right that the needs of one group should be elevated to a right, above all others.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

Relax lads, there won't be many disabled people in Ireland in 50 years (if any at all).
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,289
Relax lads, there won't be many disabled people in Ireland in 50 years (if any at all).
if the dsp have their way you are correct, i was aske to take off my socks during a dsp check up, when i queried it, i was trold in case i had stones under my socks, the contsultants report was not worth a ************************
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,862
Column: 'I don't have the same civil rights as other Irish women. I have a disability'



I'll start by saying that I'm convinced by the writer's argument that personal supports can unlock the potential of disabled people to deliver more on balance to society than purely "being cared for".

But from a philosophical point of view I'm of the "nonsense on stilts" view regarding much of what passes for human rights claims, and only partly moved by inequality arguments. Simply put:
- Asserting a right beyond the most basic individual freedoms is nothing more than an emotional assertion that "the state should provide for me". This needs a different philosophical underpinning, but often these days the assertion of a right is considered sufficient justification
- In the case of disability, inequality is sadly and simply a fact. The inequality itself cannot be erased. The effects of disability can be mitigated or minimised through positive action but that is a different matter.

My point? The language of rights and inequality has become misused and will ultimately counter-productive as people see it as an emotive way of shoe-horning additional burdens onto the state.

This woman writing argues well that on a consequential basis support for her is justified, and indeed says it in the quote above ("we have the solution and we want people to listen to us"). But the language of rights and inequality is ultimately divisive.

I don't understand your argument.

Is your argument: (a) that there are no moral rights? or (b) that there are no positive moral rights? or (c) that there are some positive moral rights, but that the right to compensation for disabilities is not among them? or (d) something else?
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,399
We should spend more money on the disabled. It is the right thing to do. There are not enough of them to bankrupt the state, so we should be generous as fk. And in any case, if the 8th amendment is repealed, there won't be any more of them after a while, so there is no long term cost. I suppose given that we are actively planning to wipe them out, it would be decent at least to make sure that the final generation of Irish disabled people are treated well.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
I don't understand your argument.

Is your argument: (a) that there are no moral rights? or (b) that there are no positive moral rights? or (c) that there are some positive moral rights, but that the right to compensation for disabilities is not among them? or (d) something else?
Sort of a). The concept of rights is useful in governing the relationship between individual and state; but rights are not the fundamental justification. I believe each right needs a separate justification and I would broadly be in favour of consequentialist justifications.

I.e. in this case, the disabled woman argues that a personal assistant enables her to look after herself, contribute
to society, raise her child etc. - positive consequences that appeal to those net contributors to the state (who pay for public services) far more than the assertion of a right.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

if the dsp have their way you are correct, i was aske to take off my socks during a dsp check up, when i queried it, i was trold in case i had stones under my socks, the contsultants report was not worth a ************************
The existence of the disabled keeps some of those boys and girls in jobs. So, I'd expect them to vote against a repeal of the 8th (assuming their using their heads).

I agree wholeheartedly with SDS. We should be spending more on the disabled. Money well spent IMO.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Well for a start we can get it through our heads that is no such category of person as "the disabled." Anyone of us can have a disability and as we get older, it is more likely we will develop one.

My father who had 20:20 vision as a young man, something few of of you have ever possessed, developed glaucoma in his later years, and became legally blind. In his youth he served as a marksman in the Army.

You are going to have to recognise that there is no such thing as abled or disabled. The most brilliant people I have ever known had severe episodes of depression which rendered then temporarily "disabled". They came out of them, with major help.

The Irish dont do humanity very well. I've noticed this about us.
 

Reasunach

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
1,055
Column: 'I don't have the same civil rights as other Irish women. I have a disability'



I'll start by saying that I'm convinced by the writer's argument that personal supports can unlock the potential of disabled people to deliver more on balance to society than purely "being cared for".

But from a philosophical point of view I'm of the "nonsense on stilts" view regarding much of what passes for human rights claims, and only partly moved by inequality arguments. Simply put:
- Asserting a right beyond the most basic individual freedoms is nothing more than an emotional assertion that "the state should provide for me". This needs a different philosophical underpinning, but often these days the assertion of a right is considered sufficient justification
- In the case of disability, inequality is sadly and simply a fact. The inequality itself cannot be erased. The effects of disability can be mitigated or minimised through positive action but that is a different matter.

My point? The language of rights and inequality has become misused and will ultimately counter-productive as people see it as an emotive way of shoe-horning additional burdens onto the state.

This woman writing argues well that on a consequential basis support for her is justified, and indeed says it in the quote above ("we have the solution and we want people to listen to us"). But the language of rights and inequality is ultimately divisive.
The language of "rights" is one that causes problems every time it is raised. With rights come responsibility. I may sound unsympathetic, which I do not mean to be, but this woman is unable to look after herself without state provided help. What on earth made her think that bringing a child into the equation was a good idea? Also, where is the father? What does he have to say about entrusting a state worker to fulfill his role?
 
D

Deleted member 34656

Well for a start we can get it through our heads that is no such category of person as "the disabled." Anyone of us can have a disability and as we get older, it is more likely we will develop one.

My father who had 20:20 vision as a young man, something few of of you have ever possessed, developed glaucoma in his later years, and became legally blind. In his youth he served as a marksman in the Army.

You are going to have to recognise that there is no such thing as abled or disabled. The most brilliant people I have ever known had severe episodes of depression which rendered then temporarily "disabled". They came out of them, with major help.

The Irish dont do humanity very well. I've noticed this about us.
I disagree with you on every point except the last.

The trouble is, the Irish truly believe they are feckin brilliant at it.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
We should spend more money on the disabled. It is the right thing to do. There are not enough of them to bankrupt the state, so we should be generous as fk.
HSE alone spend E1.5 billion on disability services. On what planet is this not being generous as fk?

We throw a huge amount of money at disability, which is never acknowledged or appreciated. That should be the starting point for any discussion.
 

popular1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
3,130
HSE alone spend E1.5 billion on disability services. On what planet is this not being generous as fk?

We throw a huge amount of money at disability, which is never acknowledged or appreciated. That should be the starting point for any discussion.
the problem is that money is used badly to pay for a lot of people working
in the sector who are only in the job because its a job and therefore cannot
possibly have the same degree of compassion as a person who is in the
job because they actually want to help people.

The disabled to these most of people are simply a vehicle that enables them to
gain employment and financial gain.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,862
Sort of a). The concept of rights is useful in governing the relationship between individual and state; but rights are not the fundamental justification. I believe each right needs a separate justification and I would broadly be in favour of consequentialist justifications.

I.e. in this case, the disabled woman argues that a personal assistant enables her to look after herself, contribute
to society, raise her child etc. - positive consequences that appeal to those net contributors to the state (who pay for public services) far more than the assertion of a right.
The consequences of justifying legal rights according to consequentialist arguments would not be good, on balance. People would have no incentives to cooperate with a scheme whereby their own interests, even the most fundamental ones, could be sacrificed merely to provide benefits for others.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
The failure to ratify - 10 years after signing (!) - the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities - is a shame on both major parties. Time for the Independents to bang the drum again.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
The consequences of justifying legal rights according to consequentialist arguments would not be good, on balance. People would have no incentives to cooperate with a scheme whereby their own interests, even the most fundamental ones, could be sacrificed merely to provide benefits for others.
The main incentive for sacrificing ones interests in favour of unknown others in need is compassion, or in Christian terms the love for all humanity called caritas. The woman in the OP article has explained her situation and need; I feel compassion towards her; she has explained how it can be alleviated with state support; therefore I am happy that tax money goes to support her.

The language of rights alone, however, is a bald claim of obligation - that irrespective of the consequences, personal choices, how taxpayers feel about it, ability to pay etc., "someone else needs to provide for me". That is not an incentive either.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,862
The main incentive for sacrificing ones interests in favour of unknown others in need is compassion, or in Christian terms the love for all humanity called caritas.
Suppose that we can greatly improve the circumstances of most of humanity by enslaving some small number of people.

Are the potential slaves supposed to agree to this due to the compassion they feel for the majority?
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
Suppose that we can greatly improve the circumstances of most of humanity by enslaving some small number of people.

Are the potential slaves supposed to agree to this due to the compassion they feel for the majority?
They just might, you know. Self-sacrifice and martyrdom are hardly rare phenomena, across many cultures.

But the majority ought to feel sufficient compassion for the enslaved minority to forego their supposedly greatly enhanced circumstances.

And the legal right not to be enslaved is justified in multiple ways - historical assessment of the suffering of the oppressed; the wrongness of exploitation; applying the Golden rule.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top