Introduction
The chapter on "Equality Issues in Political Theory" by Paula Casal and Andrew Williams is a
deep dive into the multifaceted nature of equality in political thought, exploring diverse
interpretations of justice, liberty, and responsibility. Through a nuanced examination of seminal
ideas from John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and other influential thinkers, the authors illuminate
how equality can, and perhaps should, manifest in a society committed to fairness. This
exploration, rich in theoretical insight, underscores the moral urgency of equality in a world still
marred by vast inequities.
Justice as Fairness: Rawls' Vision of a Just Society
John Rawls’ theory of "justice as fairness" is a cornerstone of modern egalitarian thought,
advocating a conception of justice that moves beyond simplistic equality. His approach is
grounded in principles that ensure the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of their origins
or circumstances. At the heart of his philosophy lies the “difference principle”, which permits
inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. By placing these
individuals at the center of his moral framework, Rawls argues that true justice must be attentive
to the needs of the vulnerable, creating a system in which disparities in wealth and power are
permissible only to the extent that they uplift the underprivileged.
Rawls’ “liberty principle” complements this vision by guaranteeing each citizen the same basic
rights and liberties. This principle holds that a society rooted in fairness cannot tolerate
disparities in political power that compromise democratic equality. Together, these principles
present a compelling portrait of a just society: one in which political participation and economic
opportunity are balanced to avoid the corrosive effects of unchecked inequality.
Equality of Resources: Dworkin's Imaginary Market
Ronald Dworkin’s vision of equality introduces a more pragmatic approach, one that combines
moral rigor with economic realism. He proposes a hypothetical scenario—a society in which
individuals receive equal resources at the outset and can freely exercise their economic liberties.
Dworkin’s “equality of resources” theory rests on the notion that political authority is justified
only if it exhibits equal concern for each citizen's welfare. Within this model, Dworkin
introduces the idea of an “insurance market” designed to shield individuals from unchosen
disadvantages, such as physical disabilities or poverty.
This approach also distinguishes between "brute luck" and "option luck," where brute
luck—circumstances beyond one’s control—warrants compensation, while option luck, which
results from voluntary risk-taking, does not. This division highlights Dworkin's view that the
state should mitigate the effects of fate but refrain from interfering with the consequences of
personal choices. Through this lens, Dworkin’s theory encourages a society that values both
fairness and freedom, where citizens share in each other's fortunes without compromising their
autonomy.
The Dimensions of Equality: Priority and Sufficiency
Moving beyond the confines of strict egalitarianism, the chapter further examines “priority” and
“sufficiency” principles, which offer alternative frameworks for understanding equality.
“Comparative egalitarianism” , which values equality in relative terms, is criticized through the
“levelling down” objection, which argues that equality should not be pursued if it merely
diminishes the wealth of all without elevating the disadvantaged. By contrast, the “priority view”
asserts that benefiting the less advantaged is morally superior to a simple reduction in inequality.
This view implies that aiding the poor and marginalized holds intrinsic value, independent of any
impact on the overall level of equality within society.
The “sufficiency principle” shifts focus from relative equality to ensuring that everyone meets a
minimum standard of well-being. This principle asserts that a just society should prioritize
ensuring that all individuals have "enough"—a baseline of resources or capabilities necessary to
live with dignity. Unlike strict egalitarianism, which pursues equality for its own sake,
sufficiency emphasizes the moral importance of securing basic needs for all, making it a
powerful call to address poverty and deprivation on both a national and global scale.
Interpersonal Comparison: The Debate Over Welfare,
Resources, and Capabilities
Any framework of distributive justice must grapple with the question of what constitutes
advantage. The debate over this “currency of distributive justice”—whether welfare, resources,
or capabilities should measure advantage—captures the complexities of creating a just society. A
purely resource-based standard, focusing on wealth alone, is criticized for being overly
simplistic, as it ignores other forms of inequality, such as disabilities or life satisfaction.
In response, some theorists advocate for the “capabilities approach”, pioneered by Amartya Sen
and Martha Nussbaum. This approach suggests that a person’s advantage should be measured by
their ability to function in society—for example, by assessing their health, literacy, and
mobility—rather than their wealth alone. This framework allows a society to focus on
individuals’ real freedoms, enabling them to pursue the lives they value. The capabilities
approach provides a compelling alternative, offering a more nuanced vision of justice that
considers individuals' actual opportunities rather than simply their material wealth.
Equality, Opportunity, and Responsibility: Balancing
Liberty and Liability
The chapter also delves into the tension between “luck egalitarianism” and individual
responsibility, highlighting a debate central to egalitarian political theory. “Luck egalitarianism”
asserts that inequalities are justifiable only when they result from individuals’ choices, rather
than from circumstances beyond their control. This view introduces a significant challenge: how
to balance social support with respect for personal autonomy.
Critics argue that luck egalitarianism can be overly harsh, stigmatizing those who suffer from
unavoidable disadvantages. Elizabeth Anderson, for instance, contends that the approach is too
critical of individuals’ misfortunes, failing to consider the social and natural factors that shape
individual destinies. Instead, she proposes an “associational ideal of democratic citizenship”,
which emphasizes that all citizens should have access to the basic resources needed to participate
in society fully. This critique suggests that egalitarianism should focus on building a society that
guarantees essential capabilities to all, rather than penalizing individuals based on their life
circumstances.
Conclusion: The Enduring Relevance of Equality
Casal and Williams conclude by underscoring the moral imperative of addressing inequality
within political theory and society. They observe that while theory has evolved significantly over
recent decades, the real-world challenges of inequality persist, often exacerbated by globalization
and economic disparity. The authors call for a continued commitment to equality, one that
acknowledges both the individual’s right to self-determination and society’s obligation to protect
the vulnerable.
In a world where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, the theories discussed in this
chapter offer valuable perspectives on how we might bridge this divide. Through justice as
fairness, equality of resources, the priority view, and the capabilities approach, political theory
provides a powerful toolkit for envisioning a society where equality is not merely an ideal, but a
lived reality.
