Introduction
Before attempt to answer this question, it is necessary to discuss the definition of the doctrine of egalitarianism, prioritarianism and the purpose of this doctrine. The doctrine of egalitarianism is a prominent trend in social and political philosophy, which provides that all people should be treated as equals. Equality is the central to justice and holds that all people should have the same social, political, economic, and civil rights. Since the late twentieth century, it has also become relevant in moral philosophy. In social and political philosophy, it raises two different question and these are the Equality of what trend and why equality trend.
Egalitarians consider that equality and justice are interrelated. On the other hand prioritarians emphasise that both concepts are different. In order to answer this question it needs to discuss distinction between the Equality view and the Priority view. Here it is most important to consider which are more facilitating for individuals when their interests conflict with those of more advantaged individuals. In “Equality or Priority?” in The Ideal of Equality, Derek Parfit discuss the distinction between egalitarianism and prioritarianism which central element to discuss here. Then need to draw a conclusion that which view is superior.
Equality can be arising in many different perspectives and there may be no appropriate answer to all of these circumstances. Insofar as equality is implicit as a substantive social value which is distinct, for instance, from the formal principle that all people are of equal worth that individual should treat like cases alike and from the axiological verdict and the basic reason is that there is something valuable on human relationships that are differences of power, rank or status.
The differences of power, rank and social status are prevalent to human social life. Starting from the primitive communal system to modern society in every society there are two class and they are oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another. This conflict carried on an uninterrupted open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of contending class. More or less all human institutions and organizations identify hierarchies of authority and most social roles confer distinctions of status, for instance the relationships of doctors to patients, parents to children, teachers to students, employers to employees, lawyers to clients, and so on.
It is supposed that two persons are equally well-off. According to a social status compatible with the priority view, it needs to consider whether it’s possible for one to have priority more than the other. However if they get equal priority, then automatically better off will have greater priority than an individual who is worse off. This implies that in both views give priority to worse off persons over better off agents though for different reasons there are priority views to be distinguished from equality views. Parfit concluded that when comparing distributions for two individuals it need not ask how well off is everyone else because priority view is special in the fact.
The Priority View which may content of social ranking is this separability of individuals. Insofar as the content of the social ranking, Prioritarianism is but a special case of egalitarianism to the extent that the content of the social ranking is concerned. However, numerous authors have argued that egalitarians are in reality committed to more special views and it should reject separability. If it is summarize as content of the social ranking, egalitarianism is the best distribution because inequality is intrinsically. On the other hand prioritarianism means separability of individuals plus decreasing (positive) weights bad because to be badly off increases priority.
Ronald Dworkin reflected the reason of egalitarianism principle in his article what is equality.
He argued that intrinsically bad or unfair life prospects should be equalized, welfare should be increased, that the that justice is comparative that inequalities are just when otherwise facilities are destroyed in the name of justice and finally there are some absolute humanitarian principles like independence, autonomy, or human dignity. Prioritarians principles do not assume that equality itself can be a foundation of justice and that it is important irreducible aim of justice, it has intrinsic moral worth.
Prioritarians also believe that equality itself cannot be foundation of justice or it has no fundamental importance it is rather a by-product though it has a little importance as reducible worth. In aspect of equality they want to say that equality is less advantaged. the fulfillment of absolute standards such as respect, human dignity, or citizenship are of utmost significance to give people an opportunity to live like a human being-worthy life. They also argued that individuals should have access to food and shelter, treatment, or should have private and political freedom.
Two Egalitarian Arguments
One of the most important arguments with regard to the egalitarian view is the assumption of equality argument and the argument of pluralistic egalitarianism. The former one believes that equality does not require any justification, but only inequality does. However, if the distributor is not performing according to the principle of equality he has to give some specific reasons for his decision to provide unequal distribution. According to the view of equality the extreme pluralistic egalitarian in the special sense of comparative fairness is the merely aim of justice is wrong; however the other great prioritarian view is that equality has nothing to do with justice is also wrong. There are four different aspects which demonstrate that justice and equality are connected with each other.
- Firstly, according to prioritarians equality is significant as a by-product for the achievement of absolute standards, for example human dignity.
- Secondly, relational equality is one aspect of justice among others; one requires relational equality in order to yield like equality of chances, legal equality or antidiscrimination laws.
- Thirdly, equality is indispensable in being a joint initial point with regard to social membership, political autonomy, or liberty of exchange since absolute standards presuppose that public’s life prospects are more or less the same.
- Fourthly, equality is a result of political independence insofar as there seem to be present unique cases according to which an equal allocation is rightly demanded.
Still it is most controversial question in relation between justice and equality, which has not been successfully answered whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism has the most reasonable conception. The main objections against the egalitarians are the by-product objection of equality and the objection of inhumanity and the objection of complexity.
The By-Product Objection of Equality
The egalitarian analysis that equality is one of the most important or the central aims of justice and it should not be seen as a mere by-product, on the prioritarian side which had been a mayor point of criticism. They think that equality is a mere by-product and it is due to absolute standards similar to human dignity or respect, whereas equality is due to relational standards. They argued that proportional equality is part of equality but equality is not justified if it always means arithmetical equality
Prioritarians argument is that in cases of people who are hunger and infirmity or deficiency of goods they should be helped first because hunger, deficiency of goods and illness are terrible conditions for every human being and not because other citizens are in a better condition. It will not be justified to compare between people who are better off and hunger, illness or other people who need sufficient goods to live. In cases of hunger and illness the role of equality is not simple as prioritarians want to make other people believe and their objection loses if these people get supply and if one acknowledges that they should be treated equally as human beings then primarily their will be no ongoing discrimination and no contradiction.
Derek Parfit in Equality and Priority argued that in one respect inequalities as such are bad that their disappearance would be asked for change with something which is better. Teleological egalitarians may welcome if better off people lose their additional resources as a result of natural disaster and hence all are in the same terrible condition than nobody else could profit. He also gives an example that if we destroyed the eyes of the sighted not to advantage the blind, but just to make the sighted blind. But it would be not adequate to criticize the egalitarians by using this objection and it would be wrong to create equality by leveling down.
So he argued his objection that there is nothing good about what we have done if we achieve equality by leveling down. In the same way, it is not in any way good news if natural disaster makes everyone equally badly off.
The Objection of Inhumanity
Anderson (1999) discussed the objection of inhumanity which is one of the major arguments against egalitarianism. He defines it three different parts and these are as follows:
- ‘fault is-up-to-them’ objection,
- the objection of stigmatizing and
- The tutelage objection.
The Fault is-Up-to-Them Objection
The first part is an objection against the egalitarian view is that people who are liable for their own horrible condition should be left alone with their troubles, no matter what happens to them. The second objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to help people who are in a terrible condition, which did not occur through their own fault. The final part is an objection against the executive of the state in which category a misery should be placed and the examination of the people to get the relevant information for the state. This would be a case of putting the people under the tutelage of the state and damaging their private sphere.
Proponents of luck egalitarianism desire to equalize unjustified life prospects, if the citizen gets into a miserable position on their own fault, they have no justified demands for supply that means they people should be responsible for their decisions. Anderson criticizes this view stating that a car driver who has no insurance and unlawfully made a turn over on the road which causes a serious accident then it would be all right to him dying in a hospital.
According to Rakowski that driver has no legal demands to be kept on the non-natural respiration apparatus, any more. The society should help citizens if people lost the right track no matter whether they caused their own disaster or not, but only for they are human beings and it should main reason to give them a helping hand. It may be seen as true landmark of the development in human history. The basic concept of each sound society, to neglect helpless citizens seems inappropriate for a state which is dedicated to the idea of human flourishing.
Anderson was criticized by two point and these are,
- Firstly egalitarians argued that all people are equal, therefore in special cases such as the guilty car driver case where he was seriously injured which are so unjust that these people should be helped, even though this miserable situation occurred only for his own fault.
- Secondly, paternalism could be an honorable and convincing principle of legislation. Therefore, it should not be humiliating for the state to make laws, for example, on wearing safety belts, insofar the laws are due to a democratic process
On the egalitarian view the destruction of property in the name of justice is unacceptable. Parfit makes a difference between the deontic and the teleological egalitarianism and his teleological egalitarianism is open for criticism. He also said that a sound egalitarianism should include teleological and deontic aspects.
The Objection of Stigmatizing
Prioritarians have an objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to assist people who are in terrible conditions and this situation did not happen through their own fault for example some people are disabled from birth or some became disabled by virtue of an accident or a disease or people with poor natural talents. Anderson considered that if one looks at the rules there is no care for all badly off people which lay down who belongs to the ‘bad brute luck’ community, and the grounds to help the ‘bad brute luck’ citizens are discriminating for them. He also argued in aspect of the egalitarian view that the reasons offered to allocate additional resources to handicapped persons, are wrong because disable persons may claim to the property of egalitarian relocation in virtue of their weakness to others not due to their equality to others.
The Objection of Complexity
The objection had been brought into the discussion by Lucas and Rescher. His criticism is powerful and informative. The most important point against egalitarianism is his hypothesis that the spheres of justice are much more complicated than egalitarians accept as true. Their assumption that equality is the most important principle of justice is a false monism. According to the prioritarians, there are other principles of distribution such as there are, according to the prioritarians, other principles of distribution like the principle of merit or desert, the principle of qualification, or the principle of efficiency, and so forth.
Conclusion
Long researches and debates among Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism have been accomplished without a conclusion reasoning both the ideology has influenced the welfare thinkers almost in the same way. So it is some time difficult to making decision. Sometime it seems that the both philosophy is correct, both are applicable. But the real life does not allow existing more than one truth in a single case at a particular time and place.
There should be only one truth. Both the issue Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism are which should be practiced, totally depends on the existing system and character of the state. Social and economic precondition of the ruling class deters to whom the state machine would like to serve. In a class divided society practice of equality is a vague term. For instance in the British Legal system it has been ensured the ‘rule of law’ that produced ‘all are equal in the eye of law’.
But the practical tragedy is that for a hungry lady has been imprisonment of seven years accused for a bread stolen, in the same court an industrialist declared bankrupt without any imprisonment accused for stolen millions of pounds from Bank. A theft of bread valued single penny and a theft of million pounds which requires more imprisonment? Positively any neutral person would ask for greater punishment for industrialist. This is the real picture of egalitarianism practiced in the British legal system.
In the name of equality the things that happen is just not a fair deal. Thus this paper may conclude that the equality is good as theoretically or hypothetical presentation and for practice in real life much more horrible and inequality in the brand name of equality. This inequality can be removed by Prioritarianism. At the same this paper would argue for Prioritarianism with proper legislative guide line to ensure human rights and social justice.
Bibliography
Anderson, E. (2006), What is the Point of Equality?, pp. 289-330.
Parfit, D., (2000), Equality or Priority? in The Ideal of Equality, Clayton, Matthew and Andrew W., (ed.), (Houndmills: Macmillan), pp-91–120. Web.
Joseph Raz, (1986), The Morality of Freedom, 3rd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Web.
Dworkin, R. (1981), What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press), pp. 286-332. Web.
Parfit, D. (1998), Equality and Priority, Mason, A. (Ed), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1-20.
Rakowski, E. (1991), Equal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Web.
Parfit D., (1984), The repugnant conclusion, in Reasons and Persons Journal.
Journal article: Cohen, G. A., (1986), Self -Ownership, world ownership and equality: part II” Social philosophy and policy, 3:2, 77-96. Web.