• 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