Upload
basil-copeland
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
• All political philosophers agree that humans are morally equal – all enjoy an equal basic moral status
• Question is the implications of this basic equality• For the way political decisions are made• For the way social positions are achieved• For the way resources are distributed
The Egalitarian Plateau
• The law should treat all citizens as equals• Don’t have different laws for rich and
poor etc.• Implications for ‘access to justice’• Legal aid• Limits on private financing of lawsuits?• Strict equality of expenditure on legal
processes?
Equality Before the Law
• Basic equality often used to justify democracy
• All should have right to vote, hold office, form political parties, etc.
• ‘Deliberative democracy’ has social preconditions• Adequate information• Adequate education• Lack of poverty
Political Equality
• Basic equality often used to justify democracy
• All should have right to vote, hold office, form political parties, etc.
• ‘Deliberative democracy’ has social preconditions
• Economic inequality can lead to unequal political influence
• Application to campaign finance:• Limit or ban private funding for political
parties
Political Equality
• Neither distributive inequality nor distributive equality are ‘natural’
• Both are the result of economic and social structures
• Ideals of equality require justifications• But so do ideals that permit inequality
Distributive Equality
• Individuals should compete on fair terms for social positions
• ‘Formal’ equality of opportunity – people’s chances shouldn’t be determined by gender, race, religion, etc.• Ensures relevant competencies determine
who gets jobs• But doesn’t say anything people’s relative
chances of acquiring those competencies
Equality of Opportunity
• ‘Conventional’ equality of opportunity – people’s chances shouldn’t be determined by social circumstances, family background etc.• Prospects should depend on ability and
effort• Can justify opposition to private education
and policy of universal loans for university education
Equality of Opportunity
• ‘Conventional’ equality of opportunity – people’s chances shouldn’t be determined by social circumstances, family background etc.
• Why endorse this ideal?• Stops people’s chances in life being
determined by factors outside their control• People’s fate should be determined by
their choices, not their circumstances
Equality of Opportunity
• This argument for conventional equality of opportunity extends to natural talent
• Leads to ‘radical’ equality of opportunity• Doesn’t mean that jobs shouldn’t go to
the most qualified and competent• But affects the rewards attached to such
jobs
Equality of Opportunity
• Two principles:• Inequalities due to luck are unfair• Inequalities due to choices can be fair• Income and leisure case – no real inequality
here• Cake case – inequality of outcome but
equality of opportunity
• Treating people as equals means not letting them be worse off due to luck and holding them properly responsible for their choices
Choice-Sensitive Egalitarianism
• Policy implications?• Actually quite hard to say• Certainly more redistribution than we
currently see• High levels of inheritance tax• ‘Conventional’ equality of opportunity also
leads to this• A lot depends on the broader economic
system CSE is embedded within
Choice-Sensitive Egalitarianism
• Dispute importance of choice/luck distinction• Impossible to draw a sharp line• Not so morally significant anyway
• Misses the real heart of egalitarianism – ‘social equality’, equal standing as citizens, opposing domination and oppression• Distributive implications follow from this,
rather than being the starting point• Too focused on individual shares
Objections to CSE
• Justice concerns the distribution of benefits and burdens within a scheme of social cooperation among equal persons
• ‘Original position’ thought experiment• Principles chosen by parties who do not
know their place within society• Basic intuition is an ideal of impartiality
Rawls’s Theory of Justice
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
b) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged (the ‘difference principle’)
Rawls’s Two (/Three) Principles
• More egalitarian welfare state capitalism?• Maximising expectations of worst off
group = maximising prospects of those who work in lowest skilled, least productive jobs• Wage subsidy• Guaranteed minimum income
Policy Implications?
• Fair value of the political liberties• Preventing economic inequalities that lead
to political inequalities• Fair equality of opportunity + difference
principle + fair value of political liberties = ‘property-owning democracy’• Dispersing ownership of wealth and capital
– ‘predistribution’
Policy Implications?
• POD policies:• High levels of taxation on inheritance and
bequest• Measures to block the influence of wealth
on politics (public funding; limits to private donations)
• Guaranteed minimum income / wage subsidy
• Government support for home-buyers• Everyone being provided with savings• Universal access to high-quality education
Property-Owning Democracy
• Combines insights from proponents of both social equality and distributive equality
• Doesn’t endorse choice-sensitive egalitarianism
Final Reflections on Rawls
• What really matters is that everyone has enough, not how much people have compared to others
• Sufficientarianism contains two claims:• Positive Thesis – It’s extremely morally
urgent that everyone is brought above a sufficiency threshold
• Negative Thesis – It’s morally unimportant what the distribution of resources is above the threshold
Is Sufficiency Enough?
• The value of some goods depends on how much I have compared to you – education, money
• How do we define the threshold?• Positive Thesis demands a fairly low
threshold• Negative Thesis demands a fairly high
threshold• Can any threshold make both claims
plausible?
Is Sufficiency Enough?
• Presupposition of the moral point of view?
• Interest-based view• What about animals?• Why do all interests count equally?
Why Accept Basic Equality?
• Presupposition of the moral point of view?
• Interest-based view• Capacity-based view• Underinclusive• Why doesn’t this lead to a scalar view?• ‘Range property’ response
Why Accept Basic Equality?
• Presupposition of the moral point of view?
• Interest-based view• Capacity-based view• ‘High rank’ view• Christian view – image of God, loved by
God
Why Accept Basic Equality?
• Equality before the law• Political equality• Equality of opportunity – ‘formal’,
‘conventional’• Choice-sensitive egalitarianism• ‘Social equality’ critique
• Rawls: difference principle, property-owning democracy
• Sufficientarianism• Why accept basic equality?
Summary
Equality and Inequality: Perspectives from Political Theory
Paul BillinghamSt Anne’s College and Department of
Politics & International Relations, OxfordDCM Social Sciences stream, March 21st
2015