The reading, What is Equity? Part 2: Equality of Resources, by Ronald Dworkin concentrates on establishing a good equality relationship as a strategy for confidential sharing of resources. In addition, it concentrates in preventive policy of creating in equality inter-groups, where the parties involved are given an opportunity to share on experiences to encourage existing equality in resource allocation programs.
Envy Test
According to the experiment by Ronald Dworkin, a gain in resource access by minority groups does not mean a loss in resource access for the dominant group since there should be equality in resource distribution. Reflectively, gains in resource access by minority groups would translate into equal development. The resources such as the three main dimensions we discussed last week are finite since they are scarce against high demand from different stakeholders (Dworkin 2002). I concur with the view proposed that we can honour the traditions and cultures without inadvertently disadvantaging anyone through integration in exercising equality in resource allocation. I believe that Dworkin is right to claim that the aspect of learning the distinct individual perspectives in the process of personal interaction with different cultures should be balanced to ensure that all aspects of quality are balanced (Dworkin 1981).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Fair Insurance Model
According to Dworkin (1981), society that promotes equality in resources through the fair insurance model would benefit from obligations, outcome, opportunities, and rights in every sphere of human interaction. Resource equality functions comprehensively in an environment where human beings are liberated to indecently function but within optimal range in family, economic, and social quests (MacLeod 1989). As a response, this could be promoted through re-addressing and identifying imbalance of power and to make every individual in the society to be autonomous and independent in taking care of his or her needs (Dworkin 1981). Empowering everyone in the society would benefit every person in resource equality and such would improve future living standard of people not only in families but also in the entire society. Though such activities might also be determined through religion and culture, it widely varies depending on change and locality in terms of resource factor. In addition, empowering individuals and organization in resource equality could be enhanced through adopting cultural approaches while respecting various social norms (Stemplowska 2009).
According to the reading, addressing equality issues in the fair insurance model surrounding different theorist should be complete and reflective of the roles and acculturation as adopted by the society expected to embrace equality (Dworkin 1981). Through application of informative learning, the society is put in a position to understand and appropriate the need for fair resource distribution mechanism. Unfortunately, many institutions do little to completely democratise the institution of resource equality especially in the approach of liberation through employment. Furthermore, unfairness has not been prohibited in such society. Empowering the institutions concerned with resource equality is a key focus to the attainment of millennium development (Cohen 1989). Therefore, policies which fail to address resource allocation inequality, also fail to support the society to enhance important development of the members. On the contrary, the argument in the fair insurance model is limited. As a matter of fact, resolution for this problem should be measures adopted to promote and empower individuals in the society, who are the main beneficiaries of equality in resource sharing (Williams 2002).
Reference List
Cohen, G 1989, ‘On the currency of egalitarian justice’, Ethics, vol. 2, no. 99, pp. 906-44.
Dworkin, R 1981, ‘What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 283-345.
Dworkin, R 2002, ‘Sovereign Virtue Revisited’, Ethics, vol. 3, no. 113, pp. 106-43.
MacLeod, C 1989, Liberalism, justice, and markets, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Stemplowska, Z 2009, ‘Making Justice Sensitive to Responsibility’, Political Studies, vol. 4, no. 57, pp. 237-59.
Williams, A 2002, ‘Equality for the Ambitious’, Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 52, pp. 377-89.