Equality is a prescriptive term that suggests that man must be treated as equal. It is based on the assumption that man is a rational being. He is endowed with the faculty of reason', all men are created equal by God. The physical, emotional and intellectual needs of all men are similar, therefore all are entitled to equal rights. Fundamental equality must be created among men, because equality is a right of man.
Laski had pointed out that "No idea is more difficult in the whole realm of political science than the word equality". The creation of men as unequal poses a major hindrance to the understanding of the term. The human society has further accelerated inequality on grounds such as caste, colour, creed, property, sex and so on.
Hobbes has pointed out that nature has made men so equal in the ability of the body and mind. On this assumption he postulated two kinds of equality between men i.e. equality of ability and equality of expectation of satisfying their wants. Equality is sometimes also conceived as equality of treatment, which stands for equality irrespective of their differences.
As Locke said that men have equal right to their natural freedom. Indeed, men have equal worth does not mean that they have equal talent and equal capacity and therefore equal treatment would not fit in the meaning of equality.
Definitions of Equality
Following are some significant definitions of equality given by various political theorists
Mikhail Bakunin
"Political freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie and the workers want no lying".
Theodore Bikel
"I am a universalist, passionately devoted to the cause of equality within the human family".
Feagler
"Equality of opportunity is freedom, but equality of outcome is repression".
Fromm
"Men are born equal, but they are born different as well".
Evolution of the Concept of Equality
The discipline of political philosophy is replete with many references to the ideal of equality. Since, the time of ancient Greek civilisation, the idea of equality has evoked some of the strongest human aspirations. The content of this concept has undergone momentous transformations across centuries shaping and being shaped by the millions of people that have inspired many uprising against exploitation and for equality.
In the 17th century onward, the dominant idea was that of natural equality in the tradition of natural law and social contract theory. Hobbes postulated that in their natural conditions, individual possess equal rights because over time, they have the same capacity to do harm each other.
Locke argued that all human beings have the same natural right to both (self) ownership and freedom. According to Rousseau, the resulting inequality and rule of violence can only be overcome by getting connected to subjectivity of a common civil existence and popular sovereignty.
In Kant's moral philosophy, the categorical imperative formulated the equality postulate of universal human worth. His transcendental and philosophical reflections on autonomy and self-legislation led to recognition of the same freedom for all rational principle of human rights.
The principle of equal dignity and respect is regarded as a minimum standard throughout mainstream Western culture. Fundamental equality means equals should be treated equally in like circumstances and unequals unequally.
Until the 18th century, it was assumed that human beings. are unequal by nature creating natural human hierarchy. However, the assumption was eroded with the advent of the idea of natural rights and its indication of an equality of natural order among all human beings. This implies the concept of substantive, universal, moral equality, because men are considered children of God, so therefore everyone is equal before God.
According to Dworkin, moral equality can be understood as prescribing treatment of persons as equals, i.e. with equal concern and respect and not the often implausible principle of treating persons equally. This fundamental idea of equal respect for all persons and of the equal worth or equal dignity of all human beings is accepted as a minimal standard in modern Western political and moral culture.
Dimensions of Equality
Equality may be classified into different forms
Legal Equality
The principle of equality was initially put forward as the demand for legal equality grant of equal legal status to all individuals in society irrespective of any difference. JJ Rousseau, in his theory of social contract (1762) believed that extension of legal equality to all citizens were the primary characteristic of civil society.
The idea of legal equality thus emanates from moral considerations and serves as the basis of equal rights of men. Equality of law implies equal access to law. Legal equality implies equal subjection of all citizens to the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens. Legal equality creates formal equality.
Political Equality
It implies equal political rights for citizens. The doctrine of political equality is based on the conception of individuals as a rational being, capable of political judgement irrespective of any disparities. It is based on the assumption that equal political rights ensures common good. Political equality consists of
• democratic rights of the people.
• universalisation of franchise.
• equal freedom to hold and express political opinions without fear or favour.
• equal rights to form associations to influence political decisions.
Robert Dahl believes that only a democratic government is consistent with the logic of political equality that refers to certain criteria which mark a democratic process. These criterias are
• voting equally
• enlightened understanding
• effective participation
• controlling the agenda
• inclusion of all adult members in collective decisions.
These five criterias, which Dahl says, make the democratic process fully consistent with the logic of political equality.
The achievement of political equality has created the demand for socio-economic equality.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America discussed that the demand for equality has been political in nature, while in the second phase, it would be primarily social and economic.
Thus, Tocqueville had anticipated the growth of socialist theory which chiefly concerned itself with the necessity of socio-economic equality.
Social Equality
SI Benn and RS Peters in their social principles and the democratic state (1975) have significantly remarked that the term Social Equality has been adopted by socialists largely to distinguish their objective from the earlier egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution.
Men demanded equality before the law which they equated with the elimination of aristocratic legal privileges and feudal obligations.
Social equality is conceived as a social state of affairs in which all people or isolated groups within a specific society have the same status in a certain respect.
It refers to the absence of social class or caste boundaries as also the absence of unjustified discrimination on grounds such as of gender, age, caste, creed, origin, disability and the like.
Social equality, according to Ruut Veenhoven comprises of redistribution of power through the introduction of Universal Adult Franchise, redistribution of knowledge through compulsory education and redistribution of income through social security.
On the premises of social equality, economic and political equality acquires meaning and strength.
Economic Equality
It does not imply equal economic conditions but signify absence of economic disparities. It means satisfying the urgent and basic needs of few before addressing the specific needs of few. Economic inequality would render all forms of equalities insignificant.
The Marxists hold the view that concentration of wealth in fewer hands pave the formation of antagonistic opposing classes i.e. resulting in the economically dominant class exploiting the non-possessing class.
Equality of Outcome
The idea of an equality of outcome is the most radical and controversial face of egalitarianism. Whereas equal opportunities requires that significant steps are taken towards achieving greater social and economic equality, far more dramatic changes are necessary if 'outcomes' are to be equalised.
This is a goal which uncovers a fundamental ideological divide. Socialists, communists and some anarchists regard a high level of social equality as fundamental goal, while conservatives and liberals believe it to be immoral or unnatural.
A concern with outcomes' rather than 'opportunities' shifts attention away from the starting point of life to its end results, form chances to rewards.
Equality of outcome implies that all runners finish the race in line together, regardless of their starting point and the speed at which they run. As such, equality of outcomes not merely differs from formal equality and equal opportunities but may positively contradict them.
Although, it is sometimes unclear whether 'outcome' refers to resources or to levels of welfare or fulfillment. The demand for equal outcomes is most commonly associated with the idea of material equality, an equality of social circumstances, living conditions and possibly even wages.
Advocates of equality of outcome (whether in its moderate or radical sense) usually argue that it is the most vital form of equality, since without it other forms of equality are not genuine. For example, equal legal and civil rights are of little benefit to citizens who do not possess a secure job, a decent wage, a roof over their head and so forth.
Critics, however, point out that the pursuit of equality of outcome leads to stagnation, injustice and, ultimately, tyranny. Stagnation results from the fact that social levelling' serves to cap aspirations and remove the incentive for enterprise and hard work. To the extent that a society moves towards the goal of social equality it will therefore pay a heavy price in terms of sterility and inertia.
The economic cost of equality is, however, less forbidding than the moral price that has to be paid. The new right thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek and Keith believed that, equality is based on little more than social envy, the desire to have what the wealthy already possess.
Policies that aim to promote equality by redistributing wealth do little more than rob the rich in order to pay the poor.
Equality of Opportunity
It is concerned principally with initial conditions, with the starting point of life. Very often sporting metaphors (representatives) are employed to convey this sense, such as an equal start in life, or that life should be played on a level playing field'. Confining equality to the initial circumstances of life, can have radically inegalitarian implications.
Advocates of equal opportunities do not expect all runners to finish a race in line together simply because they felt the starting blocks at the same time. Indeed, in the eyes of many, it is precisely the 'equal start' to the race which legitimises its unequal outcome, the difference between winning and losing. Unequal performance can be put down, quite simply, to differences in natural ability.
In effect, the principle of equal opportunities comes down to an equal opportunity to become unequal. This is because the concept distinguishes between two forms of equality, one is acceptable and the other is unacceptable. Natural inequality arising from personal talents, skills, hard work and so on, is considered to be either inevitable or morally 'right'. In Margaret Thatcher's words, there is a right to be unequal.
However, inequalities that are based on social circumstances, such as poverty, homelessness or unemployment, are morally wrong, because they allow some to start the race of life halfway down the running track, while other competitors may not even have arrived at the stadium. The attraction of equality of opportunity is nevertheless potenti.
In particular, it offers the prospect of maximising an equal liberty for all. Equal opportunities means, the removal of obstacles that stand in the way of personal development and self-realisation. It is a right that should surely be enjoyed by all citizens.
One particularly difficult issue which the principle of equal opportunities create is that of reverse or positive discrimination. This is a policy, in an early form associated with 'affirmative action' on race issues in the USA, which discriminates in favour of disadvantaged groups in the hope of compensating for past injustices.
Such a policy can clearly be justified in terms of equal opportunities. When racial minorities, for example, are socially underprivileged, merely to grant them formal equality does not give them a meaningful opportunity to gain an education, pursue a career or enter a political life.
Post a Comment