The Concept of Equality
The following exploration of the concept of Equality has been written as a limited introduction. For further information consult the resource list at the end.
Terminology
Equality: in general terms, the condition of being equal. It is in the practical definition and application of this principle that philosophy comes into play.
Human rights: the conditions and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ - from Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Egalitarian: a person who argues for the principle of equality.
Ethics: a system of morals or rules of behaviour. In philosophy, the branch of philosophy concerned with human character and conduct.
The Issue
The concept of equality is fundamental to political philosophy. But what exactly do we mean by equality? In what ways are we equal? In what ways should we be equal? And how can equality be achieved? These and other questions raised in the subject of equality draw us into areas such as ethics, political science and economics.
The question is not about us being equal in all respects, because we obviously aren't. As individuals we differ in all manner of things, such as character, appearance and abilities. So the concept of equality requires clarification to be meaningful. The philosophical discussion attempts to achieve this clarification so that we can have meaningful principles to facilitate the types of equality we desire.
Some Argy-Bargy
Bernard Williams (British philosopher 1929-2003) in The Idea of Equality, begins his development of the concept of equality by seeing that the idea is used in two ways: as a purported statement of fact, such as 'all men are equal', and as a political principle or aim, such as 'all men should be equal' - for at present they are not. These can be combined to state the aim of political equality as 'securing a state of affairs in which men are treated as the equal beings which they in fact already are'.
Williams says that both of these uses run into the same problem: on the one hand, when taken literally, the statements are too strong; 'all humans are equal', for example, is too strong because humans are not actually equal in any respect other than being 'human'. On the other hand, when this is acknowledged, the statement becomes too weak; 'all humans are equal', translating into 'all humans are human'. Williams then strengthens the expression 'all humans are human' by linking it with the concept of 'common humanity', which he says makes the expression far from trivial because it incorporates a moral claim. Common humanity, he says, makes differences of treatment subject to justification and relevance. For example, when allocating seating on a bus, physical impairment is relevant, but skin colour is not.
Immanuel Kant (German philosopher 1724-1804) emphasized the idea of 'equality of respect', saying that respect is owed to us all 'as rational moral agents'. Kant advised us to 'treat each man as an end in himself, and never as a means only'. He saw 'respect' as something that should be distributed equally, whereas 'admiration' - or similar attitudes - should be distributed unequally.
Williams thought that Kant's view was 'bought at a high price', because making 'respect' something that is owed to all, makes it absolute, ie not contingent, and therefore a transcendental characteristic (something that is independent of experience). Williams thought this view could not put the concept of equality on solid ground. He argued that rather than use 'respect' as the key to equality we should abstract our fellow humans from the 'conspicuous structures of inequality' in which we are found, namely their 'professional, social, and technical titles'.
Williams described 'equality of opportunity' as 'the ability of everyone in society to secure certain goods and services', and that because goods are services are limited that there would usually be conditions of access and rules of rationing. He noted that equality of opportunity could be real or it could be empty, and that it was empty when access was not available equally in reality, but only in the rules. For example, if medical services were allocated by need in the rule book, but in reality the allocation was skewed according to the ability to pay. Williams saw that equality of opportunity therefore implied 'evening up the conditions, where curable', so that, in the medical example just used, some form of independent body might be set up to ensure the needs-based allocation was not corrupted (my example) or a redistribution of wealth.
Robert Nozick (American philosopher 1938-2002) in Anarchy, State and Utopia, argued that providing your starting position was fair, any distribution of goods brought about by free and legitimate exchange would remain fair, even if large inequalities emerged over time. Nozick thought fair was not necessarily equitable, and equitable was not necessarily fair. He believed that the only kind of distributional system that was fair was that of the free market, and that any attempt by the state to interfere with the operation of the market by either suppressing certain activities or redistributing wealth by taxation would be unjust. Nozick referred to this type of distribution as distribution based on 'entitlement'. He believed that the only way that we can maintain an egalitarian distribution of goods and services is by restricting people's liberty.
And the winner is?
The historical context in which we evaluate these different perspectives on equality has a considerable affect on our judgment. Nozick's belief in the inherent equality of the free market and his assertion that freemarket restrictions are unjust seem incompatible with the instability and economic hardship of the worldwide 'Credit Crunch' of 2008/2009. William's view seems more balanced. The best path would seem to be the middle path that avoids the extremes of overbearing regulation and unfettered freedom, and understanding that while equality can be aimed for, it will probably always fail.
Resources
The Idea of Equality - Bernard Williams.
Anarchy, State and Utopia - Robert Nozick.
Philosophy: The Basics - Nigel Warburton, Chapter Three 'Politics'. Available in the Bookshop.
Reading Philosophy - Guttenplan/Hornsby/Janaway.