Double standard: Difference between revisions
Lembit Staan (talk | contribs) |
Gave examples Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A '''double standard''' is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double%20standard "Double standard"] ''Dictionary.com''</ref> |
A '''double standard''' is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double%20standard "Double standard"] ''Dictionary.com''</ref> |
||
A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—[[taboo]]—when applied by another group. A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic [[Legal maxim|maxim]] of modern legal [[jurisprudence]]: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of [[justice]] known as [[impartiality]], which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective [[bias]] or [[favoritism]] based on [[social class]], [[Social rank|rank]], [[Ethnic group|ethnicity]], [[gender]], [[religion]], [[sexual orientation]], age, or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. |
A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—[[taboo]]—when applied by another group. A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic [[Legal maxim|maxim]] of modern legal [[jurisprudence]]: that all parties should stand equal before the law. For example, a man who has had sexual intercourse with numerous women would likely be called a "ladies man" or a "player", which have positive connotations. However, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with numerous men would likely be called a "slut" or "desperate", which have negative connotations. Also, a woman who decides to avoid marriage or having children would be considered "independent" but a man who goes unmarried or doesn't have children would be considered afraid of commitment. |
||
Double standards also violate the principle of [[justice]] known as [[impartiality]], which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective [[bias]] or [[favoritism]] based on [[social class]], [[Social rank|rank]], [[Ethnic group|ethnicity]], [[gender]], [[religion]], [[sexual orientation]], age, or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. |
|||
==Policy of double standards== |
==Policy of double standards== |
||
Revision as of 14:44, 17 June 2016
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.[1]
A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group. A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. For example, a man who has had sexual intercourse with numerous women would likely be called a "ladies man" or a "player", which have positive connotations. However, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with numerous men would likely be called a "slut" or "desperate", which have negative connotations. Also, a woman who decides to avoid marriage or having children would be considered "independent" but a man who goes unmarried or doesn't have children would be considered afraid of commitment.
Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.
Policy of double standards
Policy of double standards is used to describe a situation when the assessment of the same phenomenon, process or event in the international relations, depends on character of the relations of the estimating parties with assessment objects. At identical intrinsic filling of action of one country get support and a justification, and other – is condemned and punished.[citation needed]
The following phrase became a classical example of policy of double standards: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter",[2] entered into use by the British writer Gerald Seymour in his work "Harry's Game" in 1975.
See also
References
- ^ "Double standard" Dictionary.com
- ^ Satish Chandra Pandey. International Terrorism and the Contemporary World. Sarup & Sons, 2006. С. 17.