I believe that there are two forms of entitlements: inherent entitlements and earned entitlements. Both forms have examples in all three areas of the moral, legal and economic arenas.
There are certain expectations and rights that I believe that I am entitled to simply because I exist as a human being. Simply because I exist as a human being, morally I am entitled to be treated with respect and dignity; with politeness and considerateness; to be listened to for my thinking and opinions; to be undiminished vis-à-vis any other person; to be mentally and physically free to live my life – without conflicting with others – in the full expression of my creativity. Simply because I am a citizen of this country, legally I am entitled to protection from unprovoked harm; to the same right of “ownership” of my government as my neighbor regardless of wealth, position or heritage; to be treated equally under the law as any other regardless of my perceived standing in the community. Simply because I am a creative person of beneficial outputs who must maintain my physical well-being (and perhaps the well-being of others), economically I am entitled to be treated honestly, without falsehoods; to be given the opportunity to meet my supportive needs; and to be appropriately compensated for the gifts of my talents to society. Importantly, we are inherently entitled to “the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.” (Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States, 1928).
These, and others that could be similarly enumerated, are inherent entitlements enabled for me simply because I am, I exist. There is nothing I need do to obtain them; there is nothing another can rightfully do to deny them. These rights and expectations therefore come with the fact of my humanness. They are manifestations of the “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” espoused in our American Declaration of Independence. For the spiritually minded, these are rights inherent in the beauty of our divine creation.
There are also the earned entitlements we have as a result of what we do, what we give, in response to our living responsibly within a greater society. This form of entitlement is not due me simply because I am, but are in exchange for my positive contributions and efforts. If my labors, skills, responsibilities and outputs are similar to another’s, economically I am entitled to comparable compensation regardless of age, gender or heritage. If I live a different lifestyle that causes no true (versus perceived) injury to others, morally I am entitled to the full and equal benefits, protection and opportunities that society offers. If I choose to worship God (by any name seen in any form) in a manner that causes no substantive harm or hindrance to another’s worship, and does not seek to convert them away from their beliefs, then morally and legally I am entitled to be left alone and undenied in my practice. If I give a fair day’s labor, economically I am entitled to a fair day’s wage. If I create or invent or transform an intangible concept into a tangible reality that is useful to society, economically I am entitled to be compensated for my work – a job not of labor but of creation.
Conflict arises when one tries to take away inherent entitlements – they cannot be taken away except by force. Conflict arises when the magnitude or scope of earned entitlements become outsized, or the entitlement is no longer seen as “earned” (no quid pro quo has been exchanged). However, such assessments are usually subjective, as seen in the eye of the assessor.
I would submit that unique talents and contributions deserve unique entitlements. But does a $100M baseball contract reflect a truly unique talent, or that great a benefit to our society and culture? Is the talent of many financial and corporate executives really worth 150,000 times greater compensation than the worker who actually produces their product? If an entitlement to basic medical care is a measure of the genuine humaneness of America, should someone who ignores a healthy eating and lifestyle be so entitled? Is every American looking for a job entitled to get one if s/he has not maintained or expanded the skills needed in a changing job market? If a bank is entitled to a bailout for making many bad loans, should not a homeowner who signed on to that bad loan (or even a good one) be similarly entitled to loan forgiveness? Do excess restrictions on the use of protected, copyrighted/patented materials wind up perversely preventing their utilization and enjoyment by society? Is the recipient of our charitable gifts and social welfare entitled to take no steps, sit idly, and make no effort to move him-/herself out of their need for help?
As always, it is in the specifics, and the individual, that the idea of entitlement gets difficult. It is in the gray areas, and the nuances, that the conversations become difficult, but they must always come back to match concept and realities with the heart. We are not entitled to be absolutely protected from the realities of life, the realities of nature, the realities of our human community. When we make bad choices ignoring those realities from the outset (e.g. building a beachfront home in Florida or on the banks of the Mississippi), we are not entitled to be rescued from our recklessness – though we can accept graciously and humbly the gifts of those who have determined to help us.
We are entitled to be allowed to fulfill our potential for happiness by receiving fair and equal treatment from others. Yet even our inherent entitlements come only as long as we act from our inherent good, not in ignorance or discrimination of others. When we fail on our side of our entitlements – whether inherent or earned – by not appreciating our inherent humanity or by not earning life’s rewards, then we become entitled to no entitlements at all.
1 comment:
It was a useful distinction to me to have entitlements divided into inherent and earned. I struggle with parts of "earned" entitlements such as health care. Do the 4 pack a day smokers and those overweight by, say, more than 100 lbs. have the responsibility to work on correcting their problems/addictions as prerequisite to health care resulting from those choices/habits? And if so (and I would agree with some such) how could that be tracked? Of course children under the care of such adults do not deserve penalties because of what family they were born into - another thorn infested dilemna. And if law banned smoking altogether or certain fats or fast foods, then we're into a Civil Liberty's issue!
And as for welfare programs, I'd be all for a return of WPA and CCC as a way to reintroduce a work ethic for families who spawn generations of chronic welfare recipients, but the cost of administrating would send the Republicans into fits of apoplexy. (Hmmm, maybe not a bad idea after all.) Seriously, you've hit on a GOOD point - that welfare is not an inherent entitlement.
Thanks, as always, for your thought engendering words.
Post a Comment