What is freedom? Isn’t freedom the capacity to act in whatever way I please? If my freedom is regulated by all these rules, then am I really free? Why am I sacrificing my freedom for all these inhibitory laws? Are laws really necessary?
The simple answer is yes—laws are necessary in our society. The necessity of laws is rarely debated outside of semiserious conversations concerning the politics of the world and that is not the purpose of this essay. This essay seeks to discern the good laws from the bad. The sole purpose of this essay is to expand the space for discourse of law’s ultimate objectives. My proposition is that laws should solely exist to increase or prevent the decrease of happiness within a community. The specific focus examined in this essay will be about discrimination. Therefore, when a law infringes upon the happiness and the rights of a community, it should be labeled as an imposition rather than a law.
The discrimination of certain communities is evident throughout this country’s history. People usually look no further than the civil rights movement of the 1960’s when citing examples of discrimination, but history is littered with laws that took away rights. For example, xenophobia was a major issue in the start of our country. The Irish and the Chinese were heavily discriminated for a very long time. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was another clear violation of a community’s rights. On the gender front, women’s rights remain a huge reminder of discrimination manifested in the legal system. Society was only able to move forward after laws were established that prohibited the discrimination of these communities. These laws were able to increase the amount of happiness in these communities by granting them the benefits of society that they so badly desired. While these accomplishments can be looked back upon and admired, it is simply not enough. As long as laws exist that prevent the happiness of a community, society must never stop questioning the current system. This past week, I read an article about how a committee in the Idaho legislature passed a bill that allowed business owners to refuse service to individuals based on “sincerely held religious belief”.[1] This specific legislation was meant to target same-sex couples, but is able to be applied with any stereotype that the business owner has. The term business owner is very broad and could also be used for medical services. Since the term is religious belief—of which business owners are predominantly Christian—the discrimination could also be applied to other ethnic groups. For example, a man wearing a turban could be easily denied service because he doesn’t follow the same religion as the business owner. Laws that permit such behavior encourage discrimination and don’t set the nation forward—they push the nation backwards. These types of laws should never be allowed to pass as they take away from a community’s happiness and promote discrimination.
Another important consideration is that certain laws enable people to discriminate freely and without limitations. This has a considerable impact to the discriminated communities. The psychological impact of laws is monumental in our society. For example, in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case that turned the tide in the civil rights movement, a psychological experiment was cited that showed the psychological impact of segregation on children. The children were set to distinguish between certain white and black skinned dolls and answer which dolls exhibited the positive characteristics. The study concluded that segregation had “caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred”.[2] This specific case shows the significant impact that laws can carry into society. It is critical to examine exactly what laws do and to prevent any sort of negative consequences that accompany certain laws. When laws that inhibit a community’s happiness are passed, they carry with them a message of overall disdain and rejection. This psychological consequence is the reason why laws must be critically examined to prevent discrimination and maximize happiness.
My only goal in this essay was to discuss the roles of law and to explain my position. This can hopefully create room for a discussion about this system society has in place to protect people from the negative aspects of humanity. All throughout history, progress is made whenever a community is freed from the shackles of societal discrimination. However, the most important step seems to stem from the legal victory of making this sort of discrimination illegal. This mindset clearly indicates that the law is crucial for social and political movements. Not only can the law free entire groups of people, but it can also serve as a crippling reminder of disparity. When legislation is introduced to subjugate the rights of others, society is not moving forward. Rather, society should be going the other way and attempting to rid certain communities of the massive discrimination they face. These are the types of laws that are necessary in society.
[1] Pilkinton, Heather. “Idaho Legalizing Discrimination?.” Guardian Liberty Voice. http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/idaho-legalizing-discrimination/ (accessed February 2, 2014).
[2] “Brown v. Board at Fifty: “With an Even Hand”Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.” Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html (accessed February 2, 2014).
Afternoon Moon.
I really enjoyed your approach. I got some strong interdisciplinary vibes: your thesis sounds like it is influenced by utilitarian philosophy, and then you add an interesting psychological perspective with the dolls experiment. It shows a breadth of knowledge that I think is essential in a good writer, and I’m sure it will help you going forward.
I do take issue with your conclusions, however. Examples abound about how total happiness can conflict with rights (e.g. if we suppress a tiny minority in favor of the majority, couldn’t we be increasing the “net happiness” of the community?). I think you kind of sensed this because you have a sort of slide from promoting happiness to preventing discrimination and fostering rights by your final paragraph. Going forward, simply try to reconcile these, and maybe discuss the limitations of doing so with a legal system.
You sum up the tragic dichotomy that your essay intends to illustrate: “Not only can the law free entire groups of people, but it can also serve as a crippling reminder of disparity.” It is important that we keep this in mind, especially in this day and age, because these types of issues are not black and white images from the past. As you point out, questions of gay marriage, immigrations, etc etc, are just as pertinent as ever, which makes your article both well-written and relevant.
I really liked your take on the subject, how you interpreted laws as those that “exist to increase or prevent the decrease of happiness within a community.” I like that your essay was very focused, outlining your side of the argument, how you interpret what a law is, and expanding upon a specific category of laws. However, I did find the flow of the essay to be a little confusing. The jump from freedom vs. inhibition by laws to necessity of laws, to the focus on discrimination was hard to follow. I could tell that you have a lot of information and great ideas but I think some more explanation and stronger transitions between these ideas could really aid in synthesizing all of the great material you have.
Your essay was really straightforward and easy to understand, and I really liked how you used such a recent example of a committee passing an unjust law–many essays use examples and studies from decades ago, but using this recent incident really strengthened your argument and made it relevant to modern society. Also, I thought it was interesting how you directly refered to “this essay” in the second paragraph, althought I’m not sure if it was necessary because you did state what your proposition is. Overall, your language and word choice is very scholarly and it’s really clear that you know what you’re talking about.