D C- 1

Se m - 2

Pa pe r: Polit ica l The or y: Conce pt a nd D e ba t e s

Le sson: Equa lit y

Le sson De ve lope r : Chet na Sha r m a

Colle ge / De pt : Ka m a la N e h r u Colle ge/ U nive r sit y of

De lhi
Eq uality

I ntrod uct ion

What is Equalit y?

Form al equalit y

Eq uality of opport un it y

Raw ls on Equalit y

Equalit y of Resources- Luck Egalitar ians

Eq uality of Welfare

Eq uality of Capabilit y

Equalit y is com plex

Eq uality of Opportunit y vs. Equalit y of Ou tcom e

Libert ar ian Posit ion

Marx on Equalit y

I s Equalit y only r elated to distrib ut ion of goods?

Equalit y of opport unit y v s. Equalit y of ou tcom e Concluding Rem arks

I n t rodu ct ion

Th e idea of equality is th e m ost im por tant defining featur e of Norm at ive political t heory is
very clear from the views advanced by Prof. Ronald Dworkin that m odern polit ical theories
do not have different foundational valu es every plau sible polit ical t heory has the sam e
ult im ate value which is equality . They are all egalitarian t heories.( Dworkin 197 7 179- 83,
1983 2 4, 1986: 296- 301 , 1 987: 7- 8 ef Nagel 1979: 1 11) ( Kym licka, 20 02: 3) The m ost
fundam ental idea of equalit y is the idea of t reating people ‘as equals’ with significant
r ecognition of t he fact t hat t he int erest of t he each m em ber of the com m unit y m att er s
equally. According to Kym licka, “ t his m or e basic not ion of equalit y is found in Nozick’s
Libert ar ianism as m u ch as in Mar x’s com m un ism . Wh ile left ist believ e t hat equality of
incom e or wealt h is a precondit ion for tr eating people as equals, those on t he rig ht believ e
t hat equal right s ov er on e’s labour and pr opert y are a pr econdit ion for t r eat ing peop le as
equals. ( Kym licka, 200 2: 4) Giv ing t he I m portan ce to t he id ea of equalit y Will Kym licka
argues the cont em porary polit ics and political ph ilosophy is carried out on an “ egalit arian
plat eau” . Equalit y is high ly cont est ed concept and the argu m ent t akes place not betw een
t hose w ho suppor t the pr in ciple or t hose who reject it bu t th e larger concern is how best t o
int erp ret t he notion of Eq uality , the relation of liber ty and equalit y, equalit y of w hat -
r esources or w elfare of th e individuals or equality to w hom - individuals, gr oup s or m emb ers
w ith in t he com m unit y.

W ha t is Equa lit y ?

The World is divided into nations w ith in

each nat ion t here exist a w ide gap b etw een
the life pr osp ect s of t he best offs and t he
worst off ind iv iduals fr om m ult iple
perspect iv es either w ealth or in com e or
educat ion or em ploym ent. Even t he gap
betw een t he St at es is so wide t hat t he t im e
som ebody needs t o work to bu y 1 Kg of
bread or r ice in m ost cit ies in USA is about
20 m inu tes bu t it can t ake up 18 tim es
m ore in poorer count ries. Confront ing these
disparities it is im por tant t o understand how
equalit y of life condit ion is im portant ?

All hum an beings have equal m oral w ort h and people r elat ing t o on e another and t he Stat e
r elating t o th em as equal, is t he idea that defines t he m odern political philosoph y .While
Classical and m ed ieval thinker s took hierarchy in society as nat ural ph enom enon m od erns’
st ar t with t he assum ption that all hu m ans have equal m oral worth. Until 17 t h cen tur y th e
dom inant b elief pr oposed was hum an beings ar e unequal by natu re. Because of th is larger
perspective hierar ch y am ong hu m ans was accept ed as natu ral. Howev er with t he or igin of
t he idea of Natural Right s in the w ritings of John Locke this dom inant view collapsed. I n
Leviat han Hobbes argu ed in St at e of natu re individual possess eq ual right s because they
possess t he sam e capacit y t o do harm to each ot her. Locke propounded the idea of natural
r ig hts of life, liber t y and propert y and Rousseau highlight ed how social inequality is result of
hum an desir e for proper t y and possession . Social m ovem ents and revolut ions in t he 18 t h
cent ury influen ced g reatly with t he idea of enlight enm ent em phasizing reason, individ ualism
and scien tific enquir y. Since t hen eq uality has been in terp ret ed from different perspectives.

Eq uality is not the enem y of hum an diver sity b ecause the goal is not t o m ake ev eryon e alik e
bu t to accept t he uniqu eness of each individual, acknow ledging difference in talent s, skills,
at tr ibut es and so on. The range of physical, gen etic and m ental inequality is indeed very
w ide. Recogn izing these com plexit ies’ it is im por tant t o distinguish eq uality from uniform ity,
sam eness and ident it y as t here is a widespr ead m isconcept ion about its m eaning. Equalit y
needs to be dist ingu ished from sam eness, w hen w e say hum ans are eq ual it does not m ean
t hat t hey are identical in every r espect it im plies sim ilarit y and not sam eness. I t is differ ent
from iden tity as w ell, a concept t hat signifies t hat one and the sam e obj ect corr esp ond t o
itself in all it s featu res. For exam ple if t wo th ings do not differ at all that show s th ey ar e
iden tical bu t th is is not what w e m ean w hen w e t alk abou t equality.

Am ar t ya Sen argues debat es abou t equalit y raise tw o significant question s w hy eq uality and
equality of what and in the cont em porary debat es the q uestion of equality of what has
becom e t he cent ral and d ebatable. Bu t befor e that it is im por tant to understand t he id ea of
form al equality .

Equalit y and Relativit y

Does it m at t er how m uch people hav e r elat ive to anot her? I n society X m em bers of two classes
A & B bot h hav e not hing but in societ y Y wh ile m em ber of class A have 40 good s m em ber of
society B hav e 50 goods. Which society w ould one prefer to live? Societ y A is m or e equal bu t
one w ould n ot prefer t o live in Society A because equality is not t he only thing w e valu e and a
person having som ething is b et ter than Equalit
nothing. Why
y may bedo relativities
underst ood bymcomparing
att er ? Suppose
a society X
has com plet e equalit y b et ween classes A & B While societ y Y has in equalit y and Class A has
part icular aspect of a person w it h another
sim ilar r esources they use t o have in society X bu t th ey have less in relation t o class Y
person. It could be income or w ealt h or
Society X Class A ( 20) Class B ( 20) happiness. Since human beings are inherently
diverse equality in one variable may lead t o
Society Y Class A ( 2 0) Class B ( 40)
inequalit y in other. For example Nozick’s idea
I f som eon e prefers societ y X to Y th en of
thatequalizing
person isfreedom
w illing t oequat
dep edrive wmitem
h bers
self of class B in
society Y of t heir r elative advantage, mow nership
aking may w
th em lead
orse to off
inequalit y oft wben
wit hou ealth.
efit ting m em bers of
class A. This is how t hose w ho argue for equality are som et im es accused of engaging in polit ics
of envy. For exam ple if th ere is on e sweet and t w o or m ore children w ho want s t o have it bu t
the distr ibut ion is not possible th ey prefer t o thr ow it in st ead of one of t hem having it . ( Based
on analysis given by Adam Sm it h)
 Econom ic inequalit y is bad because it affects self r espect , healt h and frat er nit y in
t he com m unit y . People’s capacit y t o t ake par t in t he polit ical and com m unity
affairs depends not only on cit izenship r ight s but on t heir econom ic posit ion
r elat iv e t o ot hers. What people hav e should be enough relat iv e t o w hat ot hers
have for t hem t o part icipat e and be r egar ded as self respect ing m em ber s of t he
societ y . This does not requir e absolute equalit y but it m ay give us reason t o m ind
t he gap.

For m a l Equa lit y

Tw o per son s m u st be tr eat ed equally in the area w here they hav e eq ual status in
norm at ive relevan t respect . Legal equality or Equalit y befor e Law is th e exam ple of Form al
Eq uality w hich m eans law applies t o all wit hout ex cep tion and t here is sam e Law for r ich
and poor . Sim ilarly Equal cit izen ship m eans all cit izens at part icular ag e hav e right t o vote,
t o stand for public office and so on . People are equal by v ir t ue of shar ed hum an essence
and t hu s equal t reatm ent need to be given to t hem in that respect, this is th e k ey idea of
form al eq uality . This idea em erged ou t of n atural rig ht t heory propound ed by Locke and also
du e t o pow erful influen ce of social m ovem ent s and revolut ions happened during period of
18 th cent ur y exam ple is The French Revolut ion the period of r adical social and p olit ical
chang e in France. With t he passage of th e Declarat ion of t he r ights of m an and citizen after
Fr en ch Rev olut ion it was stat ed that m en are born and rem ain fr ee and equal in righ ts. After
t his declarat ion th e arena of hu m an righ ts expanded t o include wom an and slav es. But in
t he early m odern p eriod t he idea of for m al equality was not associated wit h t he idea of
equal opportunit ies thu s in t he writ ings of Locke while equal nat ural r ight s w ere endor sed
ab solut e proper ty rig hts wer e also endorsed wit h restr ict ed fr anchise for t he pr opert y
ow n er s with fu rther exclusion of ent ir e fem ale sex . I t is a procedural view that
acknow ledges each per son equal freedom to act t he way t hey choose and to m ake choices
w ith out any regard to r esour ces and w ealth t hey st ar t with . The not ion of Form al equalit y is
associat ed w it h task of eradicating social privileges but fails t o fost er genuine equality . For
exam ple for m al legal equalit y grant s each per son equal r ight t o eat in an exp ensiv e
r est auran t, live in a w ell m ad e house in t he sense nobod y is denied on t he basis of race,
colour , cr eed or g ender but fails to addr ess t heir effect ive capacit y to ex ercise th eir right
equally. Th ese lim it at ions can be because of social or econom ic inequality . Sim ilarly form al
equality r equ ires t hat n o one should be disadvant aged on g rounds of race or g end er or on
grounds which law prohibit s. How ev er it fails t o address cultural, institu tional, econom ic and
social disad van tages. For exam ple equal cit izenship rig hts do not en sur e eq ual
r epr esentat ion and par t icipat ion of wom en and socially and econom ically backward sect ion
of society in the p olit ical process. To ensure t heir equal par ticipation for m al equality is not
enough and substan tive equality is r equir ed t o ensure equal oppor tunities.
 Alt hough wom en have achieved equal
r ight s in alm ost all liber al dem ocracies
but significant cult ur al, social and polit ical
inequalit ies st ill persist , t his is t he r eason
w hy t here is a dem and t o m ove bey ond
t he liberal idea of equal r ight t o endorse
m ore r adical not ion of equalit y . Socialist
fem inist highlight econom ic inequalit ies
w hich enable m an t o be bread w inner
w hile w om en rem ain eit her unw aged
housew iv es or are confront ed t o low paid
and poor st at us j obs. According t o Radical
fem inist Form al equalit y applies only t o
public dom ain w it h ignorance of t he fact
t hat “ pat riar chy ” r ule by m ale is rooted in
t he unequal st ruct ure of fam ily and

Equ a lit y of Oppor t u nit y

To de scr ibe con cept of e qu a lit y of opport unit y t h e m e t aphor of r a ce is use d

w w w .w ik ipe dia .com

Adam Sw ift argues “ Equality of opport unit y is t he accep table face of eq uality , com m anding
support across t he political sp ect ru m ” ( Adam Sw ift, 2 007 : 98) The notion of equalit y of
oppor tunit y follow s fr om t he idea of form al equalit y and can be traced even in t he w rit ings
of Plato who propose educat ional system t hat offer s all child ren equal chance to r ealize t heir
talent s and social position s based upon m er it and effort s. The con cep t of form al equalit y
does not address th e opport unities and chances available to th e individual. Equalit y of
oppor tunit y is concer ned w it h init ial condition s available m eaning it is not required t hat all
ru nners m ust finish t he race in line toget her because t hey left th e start ing point t ogether
rather it is th e equal start t o the race which leg it im izes it s unequal out com e. Thus t he
concept of equalit y of opportunit y recog nizes equal opportunit ies to becom e unequal. The
concept ad vocat es rem oval of ob stacles t hat stand in t he way of individual developm ent a
righ t th at should sur ely be enjoyed by all citizens. Closely related t o the liberal notion it
suggests t hat th e fate of an indiv idual is d eterm ined by their choice and not by
cir cum stan ces. I nequalit ies t hat ar e result of social circum st an ces as pover ty ,
hom elessness or unem ploym ent ar e w rong as t hey affect our chances in life. Vagu ely t his
basic id ea is in every egalitarian con ception . The issue of d ebate is how to en sur e equalit y
of opport unity . Does th is m eans provid ing equal w elfare or ensuring equalit y of oppor tunit y
by rem oving effect s of in equalit y in social and econom ic circum stances or talent of t he
individuals? Does rigorou s app lication of equ alit y of oppor t unity lead to St at e in ter vent ion in
social and p ersonal life? Let ’s d iscuss differ ent view s t o ensure substant ive equalit y of

oppor tunit y. (In a factory

sett ing, equality of opportunit y is oft en seen as a procedural fairn ess along the lines of "if
you assem ble twice as m any lam ps, you 'll be paid d ouble" . I n this sense, the con cep t is in
contr ast to t he concept of equalit y of ou tcom e which m ight r equire t hat all w ork ers be paid
sim ilarly regardless of how m any lam ps t hey m ad e.www .w ikip edia.com)

Affirm at iv e act ion

Affirm at iv e act ion program m e are part of adm inist rat iv e and
policy m ak ing decisions in societ ies m arked by hist ory of caste
or colour hier ar chy or ot her w ay s of sy stem at ic discr im inat ion.
As a result of past injust ice som e groups in t he populat ion
rem ain ex cluded fr om enj oy ing significant access t o t he fruit s of
social cooperat ion. I m agine count ry X w her e gr oup A enjoyed
superior social st at us due t o law s and social cust om s for
decades and group B rem ains enslav ed. Now gr oup A on an
aver age hav e gr eat er w ealt h, social st at us and educat ion. At
present even if equalit y of opport unit y is enforced by law t he
superior posit ions w ill go t o group A due t o t heir past
ex perience and t he benefit s t hey had enj oyed. I n t h is cont ex t
v ar iet y of m easures are needed t o ensure effect iv e equalit y of
opport unit y for group B for exam ple special educat ional
resour ces, quot as in j obs and educat ional inst it ut ions w hich
requir e special pr eferences for t hem t hrough different
program m es. The var iet y of m easures m ight exer t effect s t hat
( w w w .w ik iped ia .com )

Ra w ls on Equa lit y

According to Raw ls form al eq uality of opport un it y is not enough . I t is im por tant to

incorporate int elligence and social position as part of t he dist ribut ive crit eria. The not ion of
Equalit y of opport unity d oes not com pensat e inequalit ies that ar ise due t o factors t hat are
arbitrar y from m oral point of view . Social econom ic circum st an ces and special talent s of
individuals are arbit rary from th e m oral point of view becau se th ey ar e t he r esult of br ut e
luck . John Rawls’ second pr inciple allow s social and econ om ic inequalit ies if t hey provid e
gr eat est benefits t o t he least advan tag ed m em ber of t he societ y and offices and p osit ion
r em ain open to all under fair equality of opport unit y. I n t he original posit ion the device of
t he veil of ign orance is used t o conceiv e people as equal. How ever even in the or iginal
position people behind veil of ig norance have a capacit y for having a concept ion of good
and sense of ju stice. I n t he or iginal position equal par ticipation takes place as th ey ar e
equal part of the process design ed t o choose t he principle of j ustice. Fair equality of
oppor tunity is ensur ed and so is t he p rincip le t hat n o one deserves his talent s – t he p roduct
of nat ural lot tery .

Raw ls was targeted b y t hinkers like Arneson taking a p osit ion t hat Rawls category of th e
least advantaged includes m an y of t he und eserving poor . Wh o are und eserv ing poor ?
Som eone wh o is p oor and less advantaged d ue to t heir own choice for exam ple choosing t o
live on w elfare allowance pr ovided by th e State inst ead of wor king hard. This cat egory of
least advantag ed is different from t hose w ho are less advantaged not because of choice
bu t because of unavoidable circum stan ces for exam p le being born wit h a sev ere handicap.
This gap in Rawls th eor y was addr essed b y Luck Egalitarian s.

Equ a lit y of Resour ce s Luck Ega lit a r ia ns

Luck egalit arian t heory is based around the n otion t hat individ ual is responsible for his
choice but not for his unchosen circum stances. “ People’s fates are det erm in ed by their
choices and t heir circum st an ces( Dw ork in ,2000: 32 2) and this m ust r em ain argu e luck
egalitarians a fu ndam ent al insig ht when consider ing what constit ut e a j ust
dist r ibution .( Far r elly ,2007,7) Ronald Dwork in( 20 00) ,Richard Arneson( 1998) ,G A
Cohen( 1989) , Philippe Van Parjis( 1995) are t he t hinkers who endor se t he position t erm ed
as Lu ck Egalit ar ians by Elizabeth And erson. Though t here is disagreem ent am ong luck
egalitarians as w hat shou ld be equalized resources or opport unit y for w elfare. How ever th e
poin t on which Lu ck egalitar ians ar e in agreem ent are inequalities are j ust if t hey ar e th e
r esult of volun tary m ad e choices. People are r esponsib le for t heir volu ntarily m ade choices
and not for t heir unch osen circum st an ces.

I sn’t it m orally unjust t hat som e ar e born w it h silv er spoons in

t heir m out hs enj oy ing t he best facilit ies in t he w or ld best
schools, best univ ersit y and t hen best job? While t her e ar e
m any w ho go t o w orse schools and alw ay s st r uggle even t o st ay
on at school and could nev er dream of at t ending best univ ersit y
because of t heir socio econom ic sit uat ion. I t is a m at t er of brut e
luck w hat k ind of fam ily w e are bor n int o. I t is also a m at t er of
luck how t alent ed people are and how wor t hy t heir t alent is
considered in a giv en society . I sn’t it im por t ant to reduce t he
influence of m or ally arbit rary fact ors - - - for w hich indiv idual is
not responsible?
Ronald Dworkin’s influ ent ial account of luck egalitarianism is based on eq uality of resou rces.
I n Sovereign Virtue Dworkin w rit es, “ Equal concern is the sover eign vir tue of p olit ical
com m unity —wit hout it govern m ent is only ty ran ny –and w h en a nat ion’s w ealth is ver y
un equally distrib uted, as t he w ealth of even very prosperous nat ion now is, t hen its eq ual
concern is suspect . For t he distr ibut ion of w ealt h is t he product of a legal ord er : a citizen’s
w ealt h m assively dep end s on w hich law s his com m unity- - has enact ed – not only it s laws
gover ning own ership, theft , con tract but its welfar e laws, tax law , labour law , civil r ight s
law , environm en t regulat ion law and laws of p ractically ev eryt hing else.( Dwor kin,2000: 1) (
Farrelly , 2007 : 7)

Dworkin believ e that th e basic structur e of society should be publicly justified to all cit izen s
w ith special em phasis on tw o fundam en tal principles of et hical individualism - - -

Th e p rinciple of Equal im por tance- - - - - - - I t is im portan t fr om an obj ective poin t of v iew t hat
hum an lives are successful rat her t han wasted, and t his is equally im por tant fr om an
ob ject ive point of view , for each hum an life.

Principle of special r esponsibility- - - Though w e m ust recognize the equal ob ject iv e

im por tance of th e success of a hum an life, one person has a special and final respon sibilit y
for t hat success –t he person whose life it is. ( Dwor kin, 20 00: 5) ( Far relly, 200 7: 7)

The pr inciple of equal im por tance requir es gover nm en t to form ulate law s and policies t hat
ar e insen sitive t o th e special part icular s of indiv idual. Th is m eans being insen sitive t o their
econom ic backg round, g end er, race and par ticular set of skill. Th e second principle of
special responsibilit y req uires governm ent to m ak e law s and policies as far as possible
sensit ive to t he choices t hat people w illingly m ake. Dworkin’s t heory of equalit y of r esour ces
is am bit ion sensitive and endowm en t insen sitive. Unequal shar e of social good s is fair if it is
r esult of in tentional action of th ose concer ned . This m eans an autonom ous indiv idual bear
r esp onsibility for the consequences of his act ions. How ever in equalit y t hat are du e t o
arbitrar y social circum stances or natural endowm ent s are unfair.

In t he real w orld income tax is a devise t hat is used t o

neutralize t he effect s of differential talent s and handicaps.

Th e relat ionship betw een volunt ar y m ade choice and circum st an ces is com plex. Joh Roem er
argues it is w rong to hold people accoun table for t heir choices because pr efer ences ar e
oft en adjusted t o w hat t he per son falsely d eem to be necessity and society does her no
favour by accep ting th e consequ ences that follow from exercising t hem .( Alex Callin icos,
2007: 38)

Mor eover t he benefits of equal resou rces m ay differ for differ ent individ uals. Am art ya Sen
im agines two persons A and B. Person A as a cripp le gets half th e u tilit y that t he pleasure
w izard B does from a given lev el of incom e. Neither Raw ls Differ ence Pr in ciple nor Dw or kin’s
Eq uality of Resour ces tak es t his “ ut ilit y disadvan tage’ for which it w ould be absu rd t o hold A
r esp onsible into account ( Alex Callin icos, 2007: 38)

Luck egalitarians are also target ed for r adical reject ion of m erit and personal id ent it y.
According to t his approach w e cannot recog nize ourselv es w ith our ow n achiev em ent s.
Mor eover t he crit erion of ind ividual r esponsibilit y could t ur n out to be inhum an in it s
consequences because applying t he principle of choice if a person is responsible for his
m iser y then that per son would b e supposedly left alon e w ith his m isery . But in anot her
sit uat ion when people ar e in t err ible situation du e to fact ors beyond cont rol or brut e luck
t he reasons pr oposed t o help th em are supposedly stigm atizing if based on pit y. Moreover
t o d ecide such cases involv em en t of political inst itu tions is requir ed that m ean s taking
cert ain decisions for wh ich som e im por tant r elevant infor m ation n eed t o be gat hered about
cit izens which according t o som e ( Anderson 1999, Hay ek 1960) m ay harm t heir pr ivat e
sphere.

Focus on

The moralit y of Exclusion

In a societ y a person is considered as able or disable or talent ed or

untalent ed is not only a funct ion of her nat ural at tribut es but also t he
t ype of societ y he lives in for example in a complex t echnological
society the natural at tribut es that are valued may be complet ely
different from a society t hat is simple agrarian societ y. Individual X w ho
could manage oxcart and does not know how t o drive a car is
significantly handicapped in a society where t ransportat ion by cars is
present and t he infrast ructure is also designed to suit t he needs of car
driving individuals. In a societ y inst itutions and practices are set in such
a w ay t hat some individuals are unfairly prevented from part icipating in
any meaningful way in the life of societ y.

Equ a lit y of W e lfa r e

To assess th e m erit of law s or policies Ut ilitarian’s adopt a w elfar ist m et ric and t he right
policy is that which p romotes the g reatest happiness of t he gr eatest nu m ber . Welfare can
be defined as eith er sensation of pleasur e or prefer ence or satisfaction. Equalit y of w elfar e
r equir es that t hose w hose w elfar e is r estr icted m ay receive ex tra r esour ces so that th e
am ount of w elfare can be equalized but fails to accom m odate t he pr in ciple of sp ecial
r esp onsibility t owards on eself for exam ple if a per son is born wit h a d isease or handicap
he/ she m ay have less w elfar e due t o factors wh ich are not in his cont rol but w hat about
t hose w ho n eed ex tr a resour ces due to expensive way of life and taste and n eed ex tr a
r esources to achieve the sam e level of welfare. Equalit y of welfare fails to dist inguish
betw een deser ving and undeser ving beneficiaries. The other drawback is t his th eory does
not give adequate space for consid eration of per sonal r esponsibilit y the consequence is it
m ay lead t o sit uation of subsidizing exp ensive tast e the r esult of p er sonal choice. Associated
w ith t his is anot her crit icism of how p referen ces are for m ed. Our pr efer ences oft en adapt t o
cir cum stances t er m ed as adapt iv e p reference or pr oblem of “ sour g rapes’- b ecause on e
t ends to give up w ant ing som ething t hat one b elieve on e cannot g et. “ I t m ay be part icular ly
dangerous in sit uation of acut e inequality and povert y to go b y the p refer en ce of t he w orst
off, since t hey m ay give up hope of an y im prov em ent in th eir condition” J Elster ( Alex
Callinicos, 2007 : 37)

I m agine w e have a stock of goods t o be dist ribut ed am ong gr oup

of people and t he idea is t hat t he dist ribu tion should count as
equal if it lead s t o equal w elfare for each one of t hem . I n th is
g roup A wants t o eat in expensive r estau rants and desir e fancy
spor ts car wh er eas g roup B w ant s bicycle and sim ple hom e cooked
food .To satisfy desires t o the sam e ex tent A n eed far m ore
r esources t han B. According t o t he Resourcist v iew individual
should be responsible for t heir choices but equalit y of welfare
t ak es tast e as giv en as though t hey w ere beyond t he pow er of
individ ual to cont r ol. But isn’t it so even if t w o per sons could
v olunt ar ily alter t heir ends or goals t his m igh t b e extr em ely
difficult for one and easy or costless for anoth er?

Mor eover u tilit ar ian’s analy sis neglect s th e separateness of persons. I t does not incorporat e
a proper in terpr etat ion of m or al equality as equal r esp ect for each individual. According t o
t he con cep t of w elfar e equalit y w hat is at st ak es is t he individual’s w ell being but t ak ing
w elfar e as som eth ing t hat needs t o be equalized lead s in to m aj or difficult ies. I t leads t o
t he argum en t th at th e int er est of all should be t reated equally without consid eration of
cont ent of int erest .

Equ a lit y of Cap abilit y

According t o the Resourcist view of Equalit y, equality can be under st ood w h en people hav e
equal chance t o achieve whatever t hey m igh t seek in life wh en each one of th em com m and
equal resour ces, b ut t his view does not seem to realize the ideal of eq ual life chances for all.
Hum an beings are diverse and th us w ith sam e bund le of resou rces individual m ay ex tract
un equal benefits becau se th e extent of t heir freedom to achieve m ay differ fr om actual
achievem ent . The value goods have for som eone depends on m ultiple factors including
ob ject ive possibilities, environm en t and individual capacit ies. Am ar tya Sen pr oposes
equality of capabilit y to achiev e fu nct ioning . Capabilit y app roach offer s posit ive rationale for
equality by equalizing individual freedom t o ach ieve well b eing it cont r ibutes towards what
Tawney called ‘t he grow t h t owards p erfection of individual hum an being” ( Alex Callinicos,
2007 : 40 )
Achievem ent- - - Equalit y of Welfare em phasizes
on achiev em ent , m eaning t he final satisfaction Sen’s capab ility appr oach is u seful for
t hat p eople d erive fr om different state of affair s. em p irical social science lit eratur e. UNDP use
various indicat or s that m easur e d evelopm en t
Means of ach ievem ent- - - Rawls and Dwor kin’s bett er than Nat ional I ncom e Statist ics—
principle of p rim ary goods and equalit y of grow t h in GDP, GNP. I t analyzes individual’s
resources r epr esent s sh ift t owards m eans t o freedom t o achieve functioning t hey value.
achieve various stat e of affairs.

Fr eedom to achiev e- - - Am art ya Sen’s capability

approach em phasize freedom t o achieve desired
st at e of affairs.

While Richard Arn eson crit icizes Sen for not provid ing an index that would ran k individual
capabilities Neo Liberals at tack egalitarians because it would affect individual fr eedom . I n
r esp onse Sen arg ues count erpoising liber ty and equality in t his way reflect “ a categor y
m istake” t hey are not alternatives. Libert y is am ong the possible fields of app lication of
equality and equalit y is am ong the possible patt er ns of dist ribu tion of libert y. ( Alex
Callinicos, 2007: 40)
Egalit ar ian Lib erals em phasizes t hat
lib er ty and equalit y are com pat ible
polit ical values. I n societ y for ju st division
of b enefit s and burdens of social
cooperation bot h these valu es should b e
given due consideration . How ever t her e is
no consensu s about dist ribu tive out com e
t hat b est com plem ent liber t y and equality .

Equ a lit y is com ple x

Walzer argu es for com plex equalit y, th e idea is different goods b elong to differ ent
dist r ibutive sp her es and each has its own dist ribu tive principles. For exam ple unequal
dist r ibution of m oney is perm issible if t hat inequalit y is the result of som e fair m echanism ,
which is people’s ability t o m ake m on ey and as long as m oney inequality does not influ ence
t he distribution of goods belonging to oth er spheres for exam ple education or health.
According to this view inequality justified b y relevant reasons is not obj ect ionable if it is not
dist urbing equality in ot her spheres.

According t o the above m ent ioned discussion of various posit ions equality of opport unit y
seeks t o corr ect for all u nchosen disadvan tages natural as w ell as social and difference of
ou tcom e reflect differ ence of choice. This m ean s as long as people m ake infor m ed choice
and are awar e of its consequences equality of opport unit y am oun ts t o equalit y of outcom e.
Differ ence of ou tcom e is not in equalit y. For exam ple A wor ks longer hou rs t han B t hu s
earning m ore m oney while B works less and en joy m ore leisure and earns enough t o stay
alive, in t his exam ple with r espect to m oney ou tcom e th ere is ineq uality bu t th ey w ill hav e
equal out com e in t erm s of ov erall bundle of incom e plus leisu re.

Equ a lit y of Opport unit y v s. Equa lit y of out com e

Eq uality of opport unity is con cerned p rincipally with initial conditions and the r em oval of
ob stacles t hat st ay in t he way of per sonal d evelopm ent ; equality of out com e is con cerned
w ith end r esu lt s. Equality of ou tcom e m ay refer t o resources, level of welfar e, social
cir cum stances, m at erial equality and also inv olves t ransfer of incom e or wealth or som e
ot her m easure to prom ot e equalit y of ou tcom e. Advocat es of equalit y of out com e w hether
in it s m oderat e or radical sense u sually argue t hat it is t he m ost v ital for m of equalit y
becau se equal legal and civil r ight s ar e of lit t le benefit to cit izen wh o do not p ossess secur e
j obs. Mor eov er t he doctr ine of equal opport un ity is u sed to defend m aterial inequalities b y
cr eating t he m yth th at t hat t hey are t he r esult of infor m ed choice of t he p eople.

Eq uality of out com e is also a p rereq uisite for secu ring individual liber ty . As far as ind iv idual
is concerned a cer tain level of m ater ial prosper it y is essent ial if p eople ar e to lead
wor t hwhile and fulfilled lives. Rousseau recognized t he danger of social inequality and
argued “ no cit izen shall b e rich enough t o buy another and none so poor as t o be forced t o
sell him ” Mat erial in equalit y m ay lead t o enslavem ent of th e p oor and deprive t hem of bot h
m oral and int ellect ual autonom y. I n equalit ies also disrupt social harm ony and st ability.
Crit icizing eq uality of opport unit y R T Tawney nam ed it as t he “ Tadpole p hilosophy” w her e
all st ar t from the sam e posit ion b ut ar e t hen left to t he vagaries of the m arket, som e
su cceed and m any fail. Oppor tunity to rise cou ld not be equalized in a societ y where th e
cir cum stances sur rounding it fr om b ir th ar e t hem selves u nequal. Social w ell being also
depends upon coh esion and solidarity in societ y. According to Taw ney individual happiness
does not only require t hat individual should be fr ee t o r ise to new position of com fort and
dist inct ion it also r equ ires that t hey should be able to lead a life of dignit y whether they r ise
or not and whatever t heir position on econom ic scale may be. Th e doct rine wh ich only
em p hasizes t he im port an ce of op ening avenu es t o individual for equal star t is part ial and
one sid ed. ( www .w oldww .net/ classes/ general- p hilosophy/ Taw ney- on - equalit y- of-
oppor tunity)

Focus On

There is general agreement t hat outcome matt ers. It is report ed

t hat in terms of w ealt h final out come had a st rong impact on
average life condition and life expectancy. One, w ho is rich, has
enough t o eat, can afford bet ter life conditions tend t o live
longer t han one w ho is poor. This applies to our underst anding of
nat ions also Egalitarian nat ions tend t o have less problems as far
as issues of mental illness and violence is concerned.
Eq uality of out com e is cr iticized because it may lead to stagnation and in justice. Stagnat ion
r esult s fr om th e fact t hat social leveling serv es t o cap aspirations and rem ove t he incent iv e
for en terpr ise and hard wor k. I t m ay becom e t he reason for in ju st ice because in ju st ice arise
not only when eq uals ar e t r eat ed unequally but also when unequals are t reated equally.
Eq uality of out com e can be achieved b y massiv e in ter ference b ecause people are differ ent
in their abilit ies and aspiration s. Talent is penalized and equal r esult is achieved by p rocess
of lev eling dow nw ards. I n a societ y m echanism to achieve equal out com e ar e filled wit h
m oral as w ell as practical problem s. To achieve equality of Ou tcom e St ate has to em ploy
differen t way s to com pel th e t r ansfer of r esour ces. Libert ar ians crit icize equality of out com e
becau se to achieve t he goal of equal out com e coercion and interfer ence of gov ernm ent
would incr ease. Wit h t his background of cr iticism it is im portant t o discuss th e posit ion
t aken by Liber t arian s

Libe rt a r ia n p osit ion

Libert ar ians at tack egalitar ians because it would affect individual fr eed om . Nozick argues
t hat a dist ribu tion of good s is j ust if it is t he result of free exchang e am ong consent ing
individuals from a ju st star ting poin t even if th e consequ ence is larg e inequalities that
em erge from t his pr ocess. The j ust star ting point m eans first t he appropriation of som ething
t hat is unow ned and the acquisit ion w ould not disad van tage other s. Second is the v oluntar y
t ransfer and th ird is t he r ect ification if desired of past inj ustice in th e acquisition or t r ansfer
of holdings. Nozick furt her argues one who has produ ced som e th ing has right of ownership
ov er it. I n ot her word s I ow e m yself t hus I ow e m y t alen ts and as a r esu lt I ow e someth ing
which is th e p roduct of m y talent . According t o t his view of entitlem en t production and
dist r ibution are not separate activit ies. Som eth ing w hich com es into th e w orld is already
at tach ed t o people having ent itlem en ts ov er th em . Unj ustly taking som eone’s holdings
m eans violat ing their right s. Nozick argu es against equality of oppor tun it y because it is in
clear violation of r ight t o proper t y. I t in terfer es w ith owner ’s right t o do w hat he/ she want s
t o do w ith his propert y.

Fr iedrich Hayek arg ues t hat lu ck was t oo m uch a variable in econom y. One cannot devise a
sy st em w ith any kind of fair ness w h en m any m ark et out com es are unint ended. I t
som et im es happ en that by sh eer chance or rand om circum st ances a person m ay b ecom e
w ealt hy j ust by being in t he righ t place at t he righ t tim e. I t is im possible to devise a sy st em
t o m ake oppor tu nity eq ual wit hout knowing how su ch int erv ention m ay play ou t. According
t o Hayek not only equalit y of opport unit y but all social j ustice is a m irag e.

M a r x on Equa lit y

Mar x also pr esent s a crit ique of liberal equality. Mar x env isages t he com m unist “ stat eless
and classless societ y” and lin k hum an em ancipation t o fr eedom fr om econom ic in equalit ies.
Th e govern ing p rincip le of com m unist societ y is “ Fr om each according to his ability t o each
according t o h is need s” . Mar x argues t he id ea of liberal equalit y is vehicle for bourgeoisie
class oppression and som ething quite dist inct from the com mu nist goal of th e abolition of
classes.
I s e qua lit y only r e la t ed t o d ist r ibut ion of goods?

Eq uality is not just concern ed w ith dist r ibution of goods bu t it is an im port ant id eal in social
r elationships. Un equal social r elat ions lead t o m arginalizat ion, exploitat ion of t he opp ressed
which m ay fur t her lead to inequality in th e d istr ibut ion of goods. I n t he last few year s som e
new d ebates have em erged raising quest ions of equalit y am ong differ ent g roups r efer red as
equality am ong whom . Norm s of dist ribu tive equality are applied in r elation t o g roups.
Wom en, racial, ethnic, linguist ic and Dalit Groups often raise the issue of in equalit y betw een
t hem selves and the r est of societ y. Th e d ebates abou t equalit y in r elation t o groups also
r aise issu es of in equalit y am ong m em ber s of t he group . Another issue concerns t he r elat ion
am ong gen eration s and t he quest ion oft en asked is, does t he pr esent generat ion hav e an
ob ligation towards futu re generat ions regarding equal living condit ions? I n view of ideas
discussed abov e the argum ent advanced is p eople should not end up unequally well off as a
r esult of m orally arbitrar y factors. How ever t his is a very com plex debat e wh ich requires
detailed analysis later. According to Frankfur t’s doctrine of su fficiency w hat is im portant
from th e m oral point of view is not that every one sh ould have t he sam e b ut t hat each
should hav e enough and if everyone had en oug h it would be of no m oral consequ ence
wheth er som e had m or e t han ot hers.

Equ a lit y of opp ort unit y v s. Eq ua lit y of out com e Concluding re m a rk s

After discu ssing different positions of b ot h concept s it can be said that the concept of
Eq uality of opport unit y and Equalit y of outcom e ar e not in contrad iction w ith each ot her
r ather t he notion of equalit y is it self com plex . As far as outcom e is con cer ned it can usually
be m easur ed with a g reat deg ree of precision but t o m easure t he in tangible nat ure of
oppor tunities is m uch difficult. Most egalitarian s do not advocate eq uality of out com e but as
clear from above referr ed debat e equality of oppor tunity is discussed from var iet y of
st andpoin ts. The em p hasis is on a few m orally central p oints first t hat individ uals ar e
r esp onsible for th eir choice. Second th e t hing to be considered obj ect s of equality are
t hings serv ing t he real int erest of individual. Th e opport unit ies t o be equalized betw een
people can b e opport unit y for w ell being ( obj ect ive w elfare) or for prefer ence sat isfact ion
( subj ective w elfare) or for resou rces. I t is not equalit y of ob jectiv e or subj ect ive w ell being
or r esour ces t hem selves t hat shou ld be equalized but an equal oppor tunity . Adam Swift
argues “ You cannot m ake a claim about t he j ustifiability of in equalit y sim ply by looking at
t he dist ribu tion of par ticular goods at tim e t. You need also t o k now t he process by w hich it
cam e about. This is t he way in which equality of out com e and equalit y of oppor tunity can
com e t o be equivalent” ( Adam Swift , 2007: 124) An ne Phillips argu ed that to assess the
effect iven ess of difficult t o m easu re concept of equalit y of oppor tu nit y is b y the extent of
equality of out com e. Nev er theless single cr it erion of equality of out com e is problem atic and
t he m easur e of prefer ence satisfaction is ideologically load ed. Thus Anne Phillips advocated
approach w hich com bined data about resources, occupation and role as the b et ter one.
Bibilogr ap hy

Achar ya, Ashok, “ Equalit y” in Raj eev Bhargava and Ashok Acharya ed . Political Theor y An
I ntrod uct ion ( New Delhi, Pearson longm an: 2008)

Ar neson, Richard J., “ Equalit y” in Rober t E. Goodin and Philip Pet tit A Com pan ion t o
Contem porar y Political Ph ilosoph y ( USA, Blackwell Publish ers: 1995)

Ar neson, Richards J; “ Prim ar y Good s Reconsidered” in Colin Farrelly ed. Contem porary
Polit ical Theory A Reader ( London, Sage Publishers: 2007)

Callinicos, Alex, “ Equalit y of What” in Colin Farrelly ed. Con temporary Polit ical Theory A
Reader ( London, Sage Publishers: 2007)

Casal, Pau la,and William s And rew s, “ Equalit y” in Cat rion a Mckinnon ed . I ssues in Polit ical
Th eor y ( Oxford, Ox ford Un iv er sity Press: 200 8)

I nt r oduction in Colin Farr elly ed. Contem porary Political Theory A Reader ( London, Sage
Publisher s: 2007)

Ky m licka, Will, Cont em porar y Polit ical Ph ilosophy: An I nt rod uct ion, ( USA, Oxford
Univ ersity Pr ess: 2002)

Lukes, St even, “ Equalit y and Liber ty: Must They Conflict? I n David Held ed. Political Theory
Today ( Cam bridge, Polit y Press: 1991)

Nozick, Rober t , “ The En tit lem ent Th eor y of Justice” in Colin Far relly ed. Contem porary
Polit ical Theory A Reader ( London, Sage Publishers: 2007)

Sen, Am ar t ya, “ Equality Of What” in Rober t E Goodin and Philip Pet t it ed. Contem porary
Polit ical Philosophy An An thology ( USA, Blackwell: 1997)

Sw ift, Adam , Political Ph ilosoph y: A Beginn ers’ Guide for St udents and Politician s ( USA,
Polit y Press: 200 7)

William , Bernard, “ The I dea of Equalit y” in Rob er t E Good in and Philip Pet tit ed.
Contem porar y Political Ph ilosoph y An Ant hology ( USA, Blackw ell Publishers: 199 7)

Wolff, Jonathan, An I ntr oduct ion to Political Ph ilosophy ( Oxford, Ox ford Universit y Press:
1996)

St anford Encycloped ia of Philosophy , www .plato.st anford.edu .

( www .woldww .net/ classes/ general- philosophy/ Tawney- on - equality- of- opport unit y)