Of Fraternity, Equality and Liberty

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I think the creators of the famous expression "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" which guides the laws and policies of many countries did not foresee a problem. They chose to use the word Liberty first, then Equality and then Fraternity. In my view they chose exactly the opposite order.

The concept of Liberty became the most famous and sought after and then came the demand for Equality and Fraternity almost has gone into oblivion. The reason I say that fraternity deserves the most importance is that without it, the notions of liberty and equality may not fully fructify.

What is liberty? It is the right to be free in one's actions and expressions. The problem is when we ask, Can liberty be absolute?, we find the right answer that it can't. Why because your neighbor has the same right to liberty as you and what if his interests and actions conflict with yours? So the notion of liberty should take into account not only an individual's freedom but also how it should not disrespect the freedom of others.

What is equality? Are everyone really equal? Or when can everyone be considered equal? The answer is when each begins to view others as equal to self. We see liberty is contained in the above notion of equality. When we view others equal to self we do not infringe on their freedom and act responsibly.

Finally, what is fraternity? It contains both the notions of equality and liberty because if we foster brotherhood, we see others as our equal and consequently as seen above do not infringe on their freedom.

But unfortunately the reverse is happening and in the process we find that none of the ideals being realized.

 

[sangom]

I think the creators of the famous expression "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" which guides the laws and policies of many countries did not foresee a problem. They chose to use the word Liberty first, then Equality and then Fraternity. In my view they chose exactly the opposite order.

The concept of Liberty became the most famous and sought after and then came the demand for Equality and Fraternity almost has gone into oblivion. The reason I say that fraternity deserves the most importance is that without it, the notions of liberty and equality may not fully fructify.

What is liberty? It is the right to be free in one's actions and expressions. The problem is when we ask, Can liberty be absolute?, we find the right answer that it can't. Why because your neighbor has the same right to liberty as you and what if his interests and actions conflict with yours? So the notion of liberty should take into account not only an individual's freedom but also how it should not disrespect the freedom of others.

I suppose you know that when this slogan took its birth, humans were not considered equal. In many countries caste or caste-like classifications were in vogue and the ruling class was considered divine, inerrant and unquestionable. Those who were ruled were also not all equal before the sovereign (monarch). For the same crime or mistake the punishment varied depending upon the tier to which the person who committed the crime belonged. Moreover, the serfs had no freedom even to detach themselves from their manor or Baron. Under such circumstances liberty was the first thing which those people yearned for.

What is equality? Are everyone really equal? Or when can everyone be considered equal? The answer is when each begins to view others as equal to self. We see liberty is contained in the above notion of equality. When we view others equal to self we do not infringe on their freedom and act responsibly.

Equality can be looked upon in two ways broadly speaking, imo. One, equality in natures very creation. This is absent AFAI can see and understand. Second is equality before law or as citizens under the same ruler. It was this second type of equality which the 'guillotine wallas' desired. It goes without saying that in this dispensation, there is no question of each person looking at others as equal to himself/herself. The concept of liberty is not contained in the demand for equality because it was possible to consider all people as equal before the law but without freedom as such. For example same crime could have been given same punishment but different classes continued under the age-old system of tiers and were bound up under many restrictive practices. For example, in ancient India, a brahmana and a Sudra could have been given same punishment but the caste based restrictions on the Sudra could have continued nevertheless. Thus, the demand for Liberty and the demand for equality addressed two different aspects.

Finally, what is fraternity? It contains both the notions of equality and liberty because if we foster brotherhood, we see others as our equal and consequently as seen above do not infringe on their freedom.

But unfortunately the reverse is happening and in the process we find that none of the ideals being realized.

There is a long story behind this third slogan and you can google for it. But essentially, fraternity here does not envisage a sibling-like brotherhood but a Freemasonry type brotherhood. People in the community should feel and work for their collective welfare and improvement is the underlying notion. In the current context this fraternity will mean a strong sense of patriotism, imo. (Indians woefully lack this, except our defence services.)

In that sense fraternity contradicts the other two which are purely individual-based. Anyway, even our Constitution has adopted this motto.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I am not saying one should give up the concept of liberty to the concept of equality. But when you adopt the 3 ideals , I think it was possible to see the inherent contradictions in trying to implement liberty first and equality later. The ideal way to go about this would be to change the mindset of the people so that one person does not see the other in any way unequal to him.

The way this can be implemented is through the ideal of fraternity and whatever efforts needs to be taken in this regards should be taken by the government. That is the government's laws and policies should be such that it rewards and fosters this brotherhood. The ideal of liberty would also be taken care of because the clamour for unrestrained freedom would die down and would be replaced by acceptance of the need to sensibly exercise freedom. I say this because we still see that people don't understand including the intelligent ones that one's liberty cannot be unqualified.

The prerequisite for doing the above is a sincere government which really cares for the welfare of the people. Even though the concept of fraternity that was adopted might have been different as you say, the concept of fraternity as one of brotherhood is not out of place in the motto and in fact makes it very logical.

 

[sravna]

Regarding your point that the concept of liberty is not contained in the concept of equality, I am saying liberty is indeed contained when equality is truly implemented. You example that caste based restrictions on shudras will continue even if they are considered equal with brahmins by law is only true when the concept of equality is not fully realized. If people treat others as equal where is the notion of trampling upon freedom or restricting them. Violation of freedom can occur only when you do not realize that your neighbors right is as important as yours.

 

[sangom]

Regarding your point that the concept of liberty is not contained in the concept of equality, I am saying liberty is indeed contained when equality is truly implemented. You example that caste based restrictions on shudras will continue even if they are considered equal with brahmins by law is only true when the concept of equality is not fully realized. If people treat others as equal where is the notion of trampling upon freedom or restricting them. Violation of freedom can occur only when you do not realize that your neighbors right is as important as yours.

Dear Sravna,

The two words liberty and equality arose because, as I said in my earlier post, the serfs were not free people; they were more like bonded labourers and this had the permission of both tradition and royal edicts. So, the common man's first demand was that he be free from all such kinds of yokes to which he and his family even, were tied to. Equality was not looked upon as you do today, after centuries. The only equality probably expected then was equality before law. For example, do you think there is such equality in India of today? We are now independent and so we have liberty; but that alone does not ensure equality before law.

Further, you are talking again of "people treating others as equal". This kind of thinking has even now not become common, let alone universal, and so in those days, prior to the French Revolution we may well imagine how far people treated others as their equals. (We have had many discussions in the past on the issue whether an ordinary tabra household is even now ready to treat a Dalit community person in the same way as a Tabra guest. And you must be knowing the mindset of most people even now.) Hence all the three - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity - are yet to be achieved universally and hence it is better to emphasize all three instead of diving into polemics like whether one is included in the other, etc., imho.

 

[prasad1]

The quotation "All men are created equal" has been called an "immortal declaration", and "perhaps" the single phrase of the United States Revolutionary period with the most grand "continuing importance".Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence as a rebuttal to the going political theory of the day: the Divine Right of Kings.

After Jefferson finished he gave the document to Franklin to proof. Franklin suggested minor changes, but one of them stands out far more than the others. Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." Franklin changed it to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

(Mr. Sravna note the deletion of word sacred).

The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration of Independence was first published. Many members of Congress, Jefferson included, owned slaves. In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote:
"If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves".

Equality is a good word, but just about that. We never really can achieve equality. Nothing in the created universe is equal to anything else, the five fingers in our hand are not equal. I do not think equality is achievable or even desirable.

 

[prasad1]

Even the manifested Gods (of all religion) are charmed by praise. So even these Gods do not treat everyone equal. Of course at human level we all have our biases so we too do not treat everyone equal.
Justice is supposed to be blind to biases.


But to carry out justice you need human beings, and so there is the bias. Then again it depends on how good a lawyer you have.