Politics of Difference
Quiz 2
Literature
Lecture 5 Lecture 7
Lecture 6 Lecture 8
Lecture 5 – Equality and Justice
Anderson, E. (1999). “What’s the point of Equality?”. Ethics 109(2). pp: 287-337.
Main argument – problems have arisen due to a flawed understanding of the point of equality
-recent egalitarian writing has become dominated by the view that fundamental aim of
equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck > thereby losing sight of the
political aims of egalitarianism
Problems
-several proposals given as an example of arguments which can be given to argue that
egalitarians are oblivious to the limits of state power and permit coercion of others for private
ends.
-e.g. state has to subsidize religious ceremonies that its citizens feel bound to perform, to
realize equality
-the irresponsible, beach bums seem to be the main concern of egalitarians instead of the
politically oppressed
,-the agendas of egalitarian policies are too focused on the distribution of the divisible,
privately appropriated goods, such as income and resources (neglects the much broader
agenda)
Supports objection that egalitarianism, in its efforts to correct perceived unfairness,
invades our privacy and burdens the personal ties of love and affection
Both the targets of egalitarian concerns and their agendas, seem strangely detached
from existing egalitarian movements
Proper aims
Negative egalitarian aim – end oppression (which is socially imposed)
-not to eliminate impact of bad luck
Positive egalitarian aim – create a community in which people stand in relations of equality
to others (not to ensure everyone gets what they deserve)
1) Luck egalitarianism/ equality of fortune
-fundamental injustice = the natural inequality of the distribution of luck
-fails any test that an egalitarian theory must meet: fails to express equal respect and concern
for all citizens
Fails this test in 3 ways
1- It excludes some citizens from enjoying the social conditions of freedom (on the
grounds that it is their fault for losing them)
2- Equality of fortune makes the basis for citizens’ claims on one another the fact that
some are inferior to others in the worth of their lives, talents and personal qualities
(principles pity for those inferior and uphold envy as a basis to distribute goods)
, 3- In attempting to make sure that people take responsibility for their choices, making
demeaning and intrusive judgments of people’s capacities to exercise responsibility
and effectively dictate them to appropriate uses of their freedom.
Defend > Democratic equality
In seeking the construction of a community of equals, democratic equality integrates
principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect. Democratic equality
guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at
all times. It justifies the distributions required to secure this guarantee by appealing to the
obligations of citizens in a democratic state.
-in such a state, citizens make claims on one another in virtue of their equality, not their
inferiority, to others. Because the fundamental aim of citizens in constructing a state is to
secure everyone’s freedom, democratic equality’s principles of distribution neither presume to
tell people how to use their opportunities nor attempt to judge how responsible people are for
choices that lead to unfortunate outcomes.
Justice as equality of fortune (conception 1 – negative aim)
-the concern of distributive justice is to compensate individuals for misfortune
> that the lucky should transfer some or all gains due to luck to the unlucky
-John Rawls
-equality of fortune most prominent theoretical positions amongst egalitarians
, Relies on two moral premises
1 people with misfortunes should be compensated
2 the compensation should come from that part of other’s good fortune that is undeserved
Comes from humanitarian impulse; no one deserves bad luck (weakens claim of those
to keep their advantage due to good luck)
Objections of conservatives and liberals to egalitarians
1 pursuit of equality is pointless because people are never equal (diverse talents, aims etc.)
-egalitarians react by looking for the correct space to which equality applies/ is desirable
(equality is a viable goal when confined to certain domains)
2 quest for equality is wasteful because it would rather throw away goods that can’t be
evenly divided than let some have more than others (or level down some talents because
not all can be lifted to the same standard)
-egalitarians permit inequalities as long as they are beneficial or if they don’t harm the worst
off
-also accept strong principle of self-ownership and disapprove of interference with choices to
develop talents
3 critique of desert, responsibility and markets, taking goods from the deserved
-only take portion of advantage that everyone acknowledges is undeserved
4 critique of undermining personal responsibility, given that outcomes are guaranteed
independent of people’s personal choices
-move to an equality of opportunity conception not equality of outcome; accept that inequality
of outcome is result of personal choices, but everyone should have the same, equal
opportunity to start with
Quiz 2
Literature
Lecture 5 Lecture 7
Lecture 6 Lecture 8
Lecture 5 – Equality and Justice
Anderson, E. (1999). “What’s the point of Equality?”. Ethics 109(2). pp: 287-337.
Main argument – problems have arisen due to a flawed understanding of the point of equality
-recent egalitarian writing has become dominated by the view that fundamental aim of
equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck > thereby losing sight of the
political aims of egalitarianism
Problems
-several proposals given as an example of arguments which can be given to argue that
egalitarians are oblivious to the limits of state power and permit coercion of others for private
ends.
-e.g. state has to subsidize religious ceremonies that its citizens feel bound to perform, to
realize equality
-the irresponsible, beach bums seem to be the main concern of egalitarians instead of the
politically oppressed
,-the agendas of egalitarian policies are too focused on the distribution of the divisible,
privately appropriated goods, such as income and resources (neglects the much broader
agenda)
Supports objection that egalitarianism, in its efforts to correct perceived unfairness,
invades our privacy and burdens the personal ties of love and affection
Both the targets of egalitarian concerns and their agendas, seem strangely detached
from existing egalitarian movements
Proper aims
Negative egalitarian aim – end oppression (which is socially imposed)
-not to eliminate impact of bad luck
Positive egalitarian aim – create a community in which people stand in relations of equality
to others (not to ensure everyone gets what they deserve)
1) Luck egalitarianism/ equality of fortune
-fundamental injustice = the natural inequality of the distribution of luck
-fails any test that an egalitarian theory must meet: fails to express equal respect and concern
for all citizens
Fails this test in 3 ways
1- It excludes some citizens from enjoying the social conditions of freedom (on the
grounds that it is their fault for losing them)
2- Equality of fortune makes the basis for citizens’ claims on one another the fact that
some are inferior to others in the worth of their lives, talents and personal qualities
(principles pity for those inferior and uphold envy as a basis to distribute goods)
, 3- In attempting to make sure that people take responsibility for their choices, making
demeaning and intrusive judgments of people’s capacities to exercise responsibility
and effectively dictate them to appropriate uses of their freedom.
Defend > Democratic equality
In seeking the construction of a community of equals, democratic equality integrates
principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect. Democratic equality
guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at
all times. It justifies the distributions required to secure this guarantee by appealing to the
obligations of citizens in a democratic state.
-in such a state, citizens make claims on one another in virtue of their equality, not their
inferiority, to others. Because the fundamental aim of citizens in constructing a state is to
secure everyone’s freedom, democratic equality’s principles of distribution neither presume to
tell people how to use their opportunities nor attempt to judge how responsible people are for
choices that lead to unfortunate outcomes.
Justice as equality of fortune (conception 1 – negative aim)
-the concern of distributive justice is to compensate individuals for misfortune
> that the lucky should transfer some or all gains due to luck to the unlucky
-John Rawls
-equality of fortune most prominent theoretical positions amongst egalitarians
, Relies on two moral premises
1 people with misfortunes should be compensated
2 the compensation should come from that part of other’s good fortune that is undeserved
Comes from humanitarian impulse; no one deserves bad luck (weakens claim of those
to keep their advantage due to good luck)
Objections of conservatives and liberals to egalitarians
1 pursuit of equality is pointless because people are never equal (diverse talents, aims etc.)
-egalitarians react by looking for the correct space to which equality applies/ is desirable
(equality is a viable goal when confined to certain domains)
2 quest for equality is wasteful because it would rather throw away goods that can’t be
evenly divided than let some have more than others (or level down some talents because
not all can be lifted to the same standard)
-egalitarians permit inequalities as long as they are beneficial or if they don’t harm the worst
off
-also accept strong principle of self-ownership and disapprove of interference with choices to
develop talents
3 critique of desert, responsibility and markets, taking goods from the deserved
-only take portion of advantage that everyone acknowledges is undeserved
4 critique of undermining personal responsibility, given that outcomes are guaranteed
independent of people’s personal choices
-move to an equality of opportunity conception not equality of outcome; accept that inequality
of outcome is result of personal choices, but everyone should have the same, equal
opportunity to start with
