Introduction
The occurrence of socio-political and economic factors causes a sense of inequality among different social groups and classes. The question of equality gives rise to the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a theory that affirms equality for all people on political, social, and economic grounds. Egalitarians perceive all human beings as equals without exceptions. In addition, egalitarians seek to eradicate all the inequalities and discrimination based on one’s race, gender, age, and social class among other factors. Liberal egalitarianism pursues justice by advocating equality, individual freedom, and personal obligations.
Unlike strict egalitarianism, which approaches inequalities from a radical point of view, liberal egalitarianism is preferred due of its arguments, which are rooted in fairness to mirror choice differences. In order to succeed, liberal egalitarians approach the issue of equalities from an incentive provision point of view. In this regard, the areas of distributive justice and natural rights become the primary focus of egalitarianism. This paper will explore the core issues that surround the objectives of liberal egalitarians, the issue of equality of law without equality of opportunity and the controversy surrounding equality coupled with whether it should be a political idea or not.
The differences that liberal egalitarians seek to diminish
Evaluating liberty and equality in a gratifying manner has been one of the challenges amongst modern philosophers and legal theorists. Cohen (1989) insists that some scholars still hold the ideas of their predecessors like John Stuart Mill and Aristotle, who argued that the foundation of justice is equality. Hence, it should be a prime consideration before implementing political policies. Other philosophers are on the affirmation that the ascendancy of freedom should be the basis for political and legal decisions (Cohen 1989). The antagonism that seems to crop up from the two interpretations gives rise to the concept of egalitarianism that seeks to diminish the differences that arise from the understanding of liberty and equality.
The discussions surrounding freedom and equality in relation to political policies are focal points of egalitarianism. Egalitarians see equality and freedom as complementary concepts that aim at facilitating social equality based on political decisions. The motive to promote the realization of a society characterized by people, who are free and equal irrespective of their background, inspired egalitarians to speak against any forms of social and political inequalities (Young 1990). The differences that exist in fundamental human rights in the commercial and non-commercial domains are the main issues tackled by egalitarian theorists. Egalitarian principles pay much attention to the economic and social aspects of states by scrutinizing how justice is exercised together with its effect on influencing disparities.
Egalitarians favor the idea of distributive justice. In this case, social justice becomes of a paramount consideration where the ownership of private property is not regarded as a basic right (McKinnon 2008). Consequently, a conflict grows after the interference of the egalitarian ideas of the basic rights. Since liberals do not regard ownership of property as an essential requirement for social equality, egalitarians approach situations of inequalities with liberalism, thus enhancing the viability of their ideologies (Young 1990).
Accordingly, Young (1990) claims that the principles of egalitarianism were framed in a way that they could be applied to basic rights. For instance, the Lockean rights state that every person is entitled to basic moral rights that apply equally. Individuals are required to respect the natural laws and freedoms of others. A just society is advocated for where the equitable distribution of resources, as a political responsibility, favors the eradication of imbalances. Therefore, egalitarianism strives to diminish conflicts that arise due to the misinterpretation of the relationship between ownership of property and distributive justice.
Different classes exist in society, thus forming a drift between the rich and the poor. The difference principle of egalitarianism advocates the benefit of have-nots in society through the collective efforts of all community members. Egalitarianism envisions the attainment of justice when the proletariats take part in improving the living standards of the poor, not just the idea of capitalism.
However, they approach this aspect from a liberal point of view by insisting that it is one’s choice to help the other, since everyone is responsible for his/her choices and actions. According to McKinnon (2008), social movement towards the realization of equality where the rich assist the poor to move up the social class ladder becomes an act of justice. Reducing the economic differences that tend to limit the enjoyment of rights stands out as the ambition of egalitarians.
In addition, the focus of egalitarianism is the removal of inequalities in society through the practice of the principle of equal access to advantage. Access to advantage means being in possession of resources that can be used to improve one’s living standards and contribute positively towards goal attainment. An application of this aspect is best viewed from the capitalistic angle, which is characterized by free markets. In the event that the disadvantaged are not poor due to the choices of the wealthy, egalitarianism supports the eradication of the barriers to the poor’s access to wealth.
Equality of law without equality of opportunity
In the modern societies, the laws of individual countries in most cases provide for an equal application of the law. The resultant implication is that the law is not expected to be discriminative irrespective of one’s position in society. According to Cavanagh (2002), opportunities available for seizure are also intended to be equitable among the masses based on factors such as merit. Therefore, the question of whether there is a relationship between the equality of law and equality of opportunity arises.
The obligatory nature of justice, which is a primary determinant of balance, provides that individuals should be granted the equality of opportunity (Cavanagh 2002). The enforcement of justice through the equitable application of the law ensures that morality is achieved when seizing opportunities. For instance, the majority of bills of rights provides for freedom of movement. Both men and women are expected to move freely within a territory that is violence-free in this case.
Since the law applies evenly to men and women pertaining to movement, an equality of opportunity to move applies to both genders. According to Clayton and William (2002), it would be unethical if only one gender were allowed to move in the territory and capitalize on all the opportunities that come with the freedom of movement. Here, discrimination of one gender is minimized by the provisions of the law, thus leading to fairness in the presentation of opportunities.
The provision of equitable education opportunities by various governments manifests the correlation between law and opportunities. White (2007) posits that rules guiding how revenue tax would be used for running education institutions in a particular country indicate that the move towards attaining equality of opportunity among students is observed.
The laying down of requisite provisions by governments stipulating the allocation of funds equally to all students in the various districts irrespective of their economic position can be seen as a move towards enhancing the equality of opportunities (White 2007). Schools from low-income areas can be boosted by leveraging extra funds from the additional resources from different schools. By so doing, pupils from poor backgrounds can access resources for learning just like their counterparts from wealthy families.
In some cases, the coercion of people’s conduct can be applied for the purpose of internalization of norms aimed at promoting the equality of opportunity. For the propulsion of the concept of equality of opportunity, liberal egalitarians propose that justified coercion based on the behavior of individuals could be applied to be in line with the laws that promote equality (Gaus & D’Augustino 2013).
For instance, the freedom of expression could be limited if it threatens the facilitation of justice to minority groups in society. The continued reference of the handicapped in society as disabled could be limited since this aspect tends to create an impression that individuals from such groups are lesser human beings. Eliminating hate towards a particular group through the application of the law improves the equality of opportunity. It is usually considered a crime to communicate messages of hate towards a particular group, hence making it an offense punishable by law.
Feminists have surfaced to challenge explicit films that portray women as inferior beings. Feminism advocates that pornographic materials should be banned since they are discriminative in nature by depicting male dominance even in matters of lovemaking. They view it as a violation of women’s civil rights, which deny them the opportunity to have a say in the willingness to engage in sex.
Bestowing the ideas of Anderson (1999), the subordination and other forms of sexual mistreatment arising from such films create an image that women are lesser human beings, and whenever they raise the issue in debates, they are usually not considered. The need for equality of opportunity for sexual issues has contributed to the formulation of laws and policies governing the rating of films that are explicit. The sale of pornographic materials has also been limited s to prevent further damage to the female gender.
The issues of equitable education opportunities and the feminists’ advocacy against pornography indicate a correlation between equality of law and equality of opportunity. In the case of enhancing equal education opportunities for students from districts with varying economic backgrounds tends to contribute to the legal framework of that particular country. Therefore, the political authorities are central in determining the legislation of laws that play a central part in ensuring equality of opportunity, which is available for children from different backgrounds. The feminists’ push for laws against the production and circulation of pornographic materials also indicates that the opportunities available to women can be dependent on some laws that protect them from being viewed as inferior. Therefore, the equality of opportunity, regardless of the underlying differences among individuals and groups, is heightened by the application of the equality of law.
Equality is a controversial idea
Many controversies encompassing the concept of egalitarianism have emerged. The justification for equality has been surrounded by critiques challenging the perception that all human beings are born equal, and thus they should remain equal throughout their lives. According to Barker, Atkinson, and Dworkin (1998), some argue that factors such as gender, social-economic, and political background play a significant role in determining the state of equality surrounding people in different societies.
Some principles of egalitarianism seem to elicit debates on their pragmatism. For instance, the principle of difference purports that the “well-off” should work towards the elevation of the “worst of” without considering the individual choices made by either side to be in their status (Bedau 1971). The notion that basic rights should be applied evenly without considering the ownership of property seems to be contradicting the principle of difference, thus evoking controversy.
More discussion based on the principles of egalitarianism emerged when the principle of ease of access was put under scrutiny. An infringement of the basic right occurs when all the resources for wealth creation are provided for the poor regardless of their choices. It becomes a personal responsibility to decide whether to possess property or not, hence others should not be involved (Gaus & D’Augustino 2013). Accordingly, limiting other people’s rights for the sake of others is seen as not promoting equality, thus resulting in controversy enveloping egalitarianism.
The view and belief that there is no existence of differences between the two dominant genders has elicited controversy. The social construction on how men and women should carry on with their activities has caused differences among egalitarians. Different roles have been allocated to men and women, thus resulting in the concept of gender based on sex (Anderson 1999). In this regard, women and men are not treated equally since the expectations of society are based on the roles accredited to them. Anderson (1999) claims that socialization in the modern world considers the gender that one belongs to, and thus people are socialized in a way that indicates the existent differences between the two sexes purporting inequality.
Most communities in the world do not expect women to assume political positions since it is thought to be a male dominated field. Due to this aspect, Anderson (1999) posits that egalitarians seem to contradict the social norms, values, behaviors, and roles expected of a particular gender especially women. As a result, this aspect has posed a threat to the traditional perception that men are the ones to be leaders and women to take control of household duties.
Egalitarians are in support of the move by women to assume political roles, which has brought numerous controversies since they view it as a move to overthrow the men’s central roles in politics (Amartya 2011). Liberal egalitarians do not advocate the abandonment of traditional women’s roles especially in matters politics, but they are in the view that they too have the potential to perform leadership roles. The perception that men are expected to take political positions due to their wisdom, protective nature, and responsibility unlike women who are characterized by compassion, nurturing capabilities, and gentleness has made it debatable for their capacity to perform political roles just like men.
Equality as a political idea
Politics plays a central part in determining social and economic conditions of a given state. In this consideration, politics has the capability to determine the distribution of justice and the protection of human rights. Political egalitarianism is of the view that everyone deserves equal political rights and privileges (Swift 2001). Thus, the concept of equality can be observed from the political point of view since it acknowledges the importance of political rights in promoting social equity among the masses. Swift (2001) holds that the law provides provisions for the protection of human rights in a bid to bring about equality. The formulation and implementation of policies geared towards promoting equity lie in the political realm as political leaders perform their legislative roles.
The need to idealize equality through politics could result in efficiency in achieving equality since politics has a great impact on convincing the masses due loyalty and affiliation. For instance, politicians should not use freedom of expression to communicate false communication in the name of promises. By reflecting on politics, the idea of equality becomes more realistic since the political institution would be on the frontline on matters concerning justice (Farelly 2004). The question of politically democratic regimes arising from political philosophers gets a response from the principles of justice, which seek fairness in the democratic processes.
Political conceptions that explain natural inequalities cannot be ignored if egalitarianism were to be easily comprehended. In political justice, the interpretation of equality implies an equitable distribution of resources that seek to satisfy the basic needs of the people. According to Farelly (2004), political justice aims at impressing on the grounds of the principles of fundamental needs that focus on the minimally acceptable standards of living in society. Indeed, it is evident that the political culture publicly affirms such principles that are geared towards the elevation of the quality of life. A wider scope of the idea of egalitarianism is achieved after the installation of political intuitions that sensitize the essence of justice and natural rights in the realization of equality.
The cooperation between the different sectors of society is necessary for justice to apply equally. The law should be backed by aid from various agencies working interdependently if natural rights are to be enjoyed equally. Framing the idea of equality in a political perspective reinforces the view that collective efforts towards the empowerment of the deprived are manageable through distributive justice. Kymlicka (1990) argues that rather than just criticizing inequalities and lack of freedoms in society, political philosophy expresses ways through which inequalities can be handled collectively. Therefore, an orderly society circles social cooperation spanning generations that uphold the concept of political justice.
Democracy entails a system of representation of subjects through voting for leaders and political decisions. Since equality of opportunity is an issue of concern for egalitarians, democratic procedures present excellent ideas for equality of opportunity (Kymlicka 1990). For instance, long-term foreign residents are expected to be granted citizenship after a particular period, and thus presenting them with an equal opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. Similarly, equality of opportunity can be idealized in the event that officials are granted equal opportunities to be elected or appointed based on majority votes and merit.
Conclusion
Egalitarianism seeks to promote equality regardless of circumstances surrounding an individual. Aspects of justice such as freedom and basic human rights should be emphasized for the success of egalitarianism to be achieved. The exercise of justice and fundamental human rights without discrimination plays a pivotal part in eliminating inequalities. However, some controversies arose after the conflict of the ideas of justice with the basic natural rights of individuals. For instance, gender equality has elicited debates over the years with women fighting to be recognized as equal to men. Framing egalitarianism as a political idea in a great way has assisted in pointing out the social inequalities the people are subject to, thus resulting in legislations that diminish the disparities.
Reference List
Amartya, S 2011, ‘The Standard of Living’, Tanner Lectures in Human Values, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 195-211.
Anderson, E 1999, ‘What is the point of equality’, Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 237-337.
Barker, P, Atkinson A & Dworkin, R 1998, Living As Equals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bedau, H 1971, Justice and Equality, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Cavanagh, M 2002, Against Equality of Opportunity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Clayton, M & William, A 2002, The Ideal of Equality, Palgrave, New York.
Cohen, G 1989, On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Dworkin, R 1981, ‘What is equality?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 4 pp. 283 – 345.
Farelly, C 2004, Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, Sage, California.
Gaus, G & D’Augustino, F 2013, The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, Routledge, London.
Kymlicka, W 1990, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McKinnon, C 2008, Issues in Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swift, A 2001, Political Philosophy: A Beginners’ Guide for Students and Politicians, Polity Press, Cambridge.
White, S 2007, Equality, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Young, I 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton.