I read a conservative lady proposing people with a sense of entitlement are destroying the USA and I found it ironic because, yes, entitled conservatives opposed to democracy because voters might disagree their sense of entitlement is a big issue indeed. Let’s discuss.
When talking about “entitlements,” the first step is obviously to distinguish ethical / moral / normative entitlements, which one may propose or endorse but exist really only in one’s own head, from legal entitlements, which objectively exist in law. Of course, laws must be interpreted, and our judicial system has an entire mechanism to do that. I mean merely any requisite judicial interpretation of a law is not meant to be an entirely open-ended affair, a random matter of any given individual’s moral or ethical views on the matter.
Ethical and legal entitlements are related but indirectly. In a democracy, the views of the majority of voters are meant to be reflected in law, mostly those of past voters of course, but current voters may elect people to change existing laws they view as particularly immoral or unethical. Obviously, existing laws may not correspond entirely to the moral or ethical views of any particular voter, which is why one must make a separate ethical decision concerning one’s commitment to democracy, society, the rule of law, including any limitations or boundaries on that commitment. One wouldn’t care to set one’s commitment so strong one will accept laws one finds morally outrageous nor so weak one goes outlaw or revolutionary at the drop of a hat. The default in a democracy must be to put up with laws one disagrees with an eye to changing them in the future.
Ethical entitlements are just propositions about what one supposes one and others ought to be able to do or have. Everyone may be presumed to be operating with some such sense of ethical entitlement based in their ideas of interpersonal ethics, equity, fairness, justice. In that context, one must watch for a very typical maneuver in conservative rhetoric in which a proposition to uphold current or status quo entitlements is cast as “neutral” or showing indifference rather than being simply another take on entitlements. That’s the sense conservative rhetoricians use when they claim those who try to change status quo entitlements are uniquely expressing a sense of entitlement, while those who support status quo entitlements are devoid of any sense of entitlement.
As far as legal entitlements, the distinction being made is between something one is entitled to have or do under the law versus something that is under the discretion of some official to grant or not grant. It’s not about one’s views on moral or ethical entitlements. For example, Social Security in the USA is a legal entitlement. One needn’t go hat in hand and plead one’s case before some official to receive a check. One pays into the system according to law, and one is entitled a certain amount from the system according to law. Those who complain about legal entitlements are typically indirectly saying they disagree the ethics of the law, but they may couch their rhetoric in the fact they’re talking about legal entitlements they cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily end as they might were they discretionary.
Returning to our original argument, ethical and legal entitlements are relevant to any system of ethics, law, government as democracy. However, anti-democracy conservatives may oppose voters talking about ethical entitlements or being able to revise legal entitlements and may say so in odd ways. Conservative rhetoricians have long had great fun playing word games with “entitlements.” Don’t play their games. Everyone should have views on interpersonal ethics and thus a sense of ethical entitlement, and in a democracy should express those views by supporting particular legal entitlements. Popular discussions of “entitlements” are designed to direct people away from serious, sincere discussion of the real issues, here whether any given entitlement is ethically justified or legally valid, into word-play relating to the term itself. Watch for it.
