The double safety standard

Double Safety Standard

Individuals are often singled out for different treatment, sometimes in good ways but often in bad ways. There have long been institutionalized examples, and the example of Israel is good because the Arabs who live in the state of Israel do not have the same voting rights and the schools and hospitals in their areas are of lesser quality, to say nothing of the people in the West Bank. In a reverse, people with Israel passports cannot go to Arab countries, something that only happens to them. Sometimes, the different treatment is not institutionalized, but happens in an informal way.

The glass ceiling for women is an example. While there is no legal reason a woman cannot be a business executive, there are often unseen barriers that prevent this from happening. Some are direct, like people not wanting to hire a woman for the job, but others are indirect, such as guiding girls into professions that are unlikely to lead to business leadership positions. In this situation, the different treatment comes from businesses. Even if the government of a land recognizes all people as being equal under the law, it is reasonable that private entities will recognize people based on whatever attributes are best-suited for their needs. Some discrimination will naturally occur, but should be matter of conscience for all concerned -- the best person should be hired regardless.

Another example is with veteran's status. Veterans get certain rights that other do not get, such as medical care. This is essentially part of the agreement when they go to war for the country, that they will receive additional privileges afterwards. The problem of course is that when a separate system is created, it allows for that system to also vary in quality, not always for the better. Sometimes veterans seem to be treated worse, not better, and that makes little sense. However, it is for each society to determine what makes sense. In the U.S., treating veterans differently is something that the entire society agrees is right, so it occurs. When society doesn't want to do this, they do not. However, the issue is whether this different treatment is agreed by all, or just some. Slavery in the U.S. was agreed to by white men, same with apartheid in South Africa. When the entire population agrees, like with veterans' treatment it is acceptable. Where only some in the society have agreed, then the different treatment is unjust.

Different treatment in the narrative is not a matter of human rights but a matter of pragmatism, and there are certainly cases where pragmatic considerations guide the different treatment. Society has laws, but people do break the laws, and so the mother protects her daughters, knowing that they are less likely to defend against someone breaking the law. So activity that takes place outside the laws invalidates the protections that the laws afford. Indeed, it is only at the institutional level where different treatment is not allowed is a society with equal rights under the law. The government cannot discriminate against people and treat them differently. However, laws have defined how the idea of "equal rights under the law" is applied, so that even today governments discriminate against gay people who want to get married, treating them differently from straight people. While I see that sometimes pragmatic considerations might arise, like affording one's daughters more protections, I do not feel that there should be institutionalization of different treatment if the nation truly wants to promise that all people will be equal under the law.

Where there are pragmatic considerations, I think it is reasonable to treat people differently. This world rewards people for what they contribute to it -- in theory, anyway -- so it is reasonable for more intelligent people to be moved into tougher classes at school to accelerate their abilities. To do otherwise would be to hold back their progress, something that does nobody any good.