Will Kymlicka's Argument On Group Differentiated Rights

1872 Words8 Pages
All throughout time, minority cultures have had a difficult time surviving. When brought into a society with a larger cultural group, the people in the minority group have a hard time keeping the ideals and practices that they are used to. If they attempt to keep these ideals, it ends up creating great harm for the people and eventually limits their survival. In order for these minority groups to survive, they must conform the the practices of the larger body of people and adapt their ways. However, a notion of group-differentiated rights is brought up by Will Kymlicka. Group-differentiated rights are rights that are enacted by the government in order to help a minority cultural group survive. In this paper, I will talk about social justice…show more content…
Political liberalism is the first term. This is the thought that places emphasis on maximizing individual values, especially individual liberty. Kymlicka agrees with this saying “Most liberal theorists defend their theories in terms of ‘equal respect for persons’ and the ‘equal rights of individuals’” (Kymlicka 1006). Liberal philosophers argue that each individual should have certain freedoms and that each person should be treated equally. People are born free, and justice is served to the people when fairness is served to everyone. Another topic that will be used to argue Kymlicka’s ideas is the idea of multiculturalism. This is the argument that there are multiple types of cultures. The government should make room within the political community to ensure that diversity exists. In order for society to exist successfully, diversity must be present. When diversity is welcomed, new ideas and perspectives can come about. However, the states should not just tolerate the different cultures present in society, they should work to ensure that all cultures are welcomed in society. This will lead to true multiculturalism which is being inclusive to minorities and ensuring equal freedom and rights for minority…show more content…
With the rise of gun violence, and terrorism in the world, people take very strong stances on what they believe should be the right immigration policy and voice their opinions about their stances on immigration policy. Some believe that the United States should adopt a closed border policy, making it impossible for anyone to become a citizen, or discriminating against a particular culture and making it so they cannot immigrate to the U.S. However, others believe that no immigration policy is necessary, and that anyone who wants to pledge their allegiance to the U.S. should be able to do so. I understand both of these sides arguments, but, I do not know if I can side with either one. There should be some limits on immigration, but not extreme limits. As Aristotle would put it, there should be a “golden mean.” Supporters of both sides should compromise in their opinions and work to ensure that the citizens can be safe, but also that the country is not being so restrictive. As previously stated, Kymlicka would also tend to agree with this policy of immigration. The government serves the purpose to protect the rights of the citizens, and if an open door immigration policy were adapted, the citizens’ lives may become endangered. Kymlicka argues that the government enacts rights in order to help protect the citizens, thus, an immigration policy should be enacted to do the same. In order to gain citizenship, the first thing

    More about Will Kymlicka's Argument On Group Differentiated Rights

      Open Document