Equality

Question 1

Problem of expensive needs

Answer 1

Equalising resources not fair because some (e.g. ill/disabled) have more needs than others and so need more resources to lead a good life

Question 2

Problem of expensive tastes

Answer 2

Equalising welfare means giving more resources to those with expensive tastes

Question 3

Brute vs option luck

Answer 3

‘Brute’ luck - due to factors not caused by choices within control

‘Option’ luck - due to free and deliberate choices)

Question 4

Harshness criticism of luck egalitarianism (LE)

Answer 4

1. Too harsh to victims of bad option luck
2. LE says we shouldn’t, at least based on value of equality, help people injured in war/extreme sports (injuries due to own free choices)
3. But it seems cold and harsh to leave people to suffer, just because outcomes = product of own decisions

Question 5

LE reply to harshness objection

Answer 5

1. Everyone should buy insurance against risk of bad option luck
2. Value plurality

Question 6

Problem with compensation for bad brute luck in LE?

Answer 6

Leads to feelings of shame and humiliation

Question 7

Relational equality

Answer 7

1. Value of equality lies in equal social relations (each stands in equal + symmetric relations of respect, concern and standing)
2. Aims to end social hierarchies/relationships characterised by oppression, domination and exploitation

Question 8

Reasons relational equality is compelling

Answer 8

1. Fits with intuition underlying egalitarian concern (that we are all moral equals)
2. In line with historical egalitarian struggles

Question 9

Possible distributional implications of relational equality

Answer 9

NO SINGLE DISTRIBUTIONAL STANDARD

1. Minimum income floor so everyone can access basic needs w/o being stigmatised
2. No excessive inequality (causes stratification between rich/poor, social privileges like deference, and political exemptions for rich)
3. Equal access to education to fulfil potential and provide skills to engage w/others on equal terms
4. Democracy to avoid political power domination

Question 10

Objections to welfare equalisation

Answer 10

1. Offensive preferences
2. Expensive tastes
3. Sunny disposition

Question 11

Response to expensive tastes objection? Problem with response?

Answer 11

ALTERNATIVE - instead affirm equal opportunity for welfare (so don’t give more resources to those who have cultivated expensive tastes)

PROBLEM - expensive tastes may be due to factors outside own control

Question 12

Intuition behind LE?

Answer 12

1. Personal responsibility

2. Moral arbitrariness of inequality not due to free deliberate choice

Question 13

Criticism of LE’s distinction between brute and option luck

Answer 13

1. Choice/circumstances distinction not sustainable

2. Relies on assumption of free will, but what if determinism is true?

Question 14

Tensions between relational equality and distributive equality

Answer 14

1. RE allows inequalities that DE doesn’t (e.g. outcome of natural disaster, as long as no unequal social relations)
2. RE condemns inequalities that LE allows (e.g. poverty through deliberate choices that nonetheless result in social stigma)

Question 15

LE criticism of RE?

Answer 15

Neglects notion of individual responsibility

Question 16

Temkin’s argument to support the force of the levelling down objection

Answer 16

State of affairs cannot (in any way) be better off/worse off if there’s no person for whom it’s better/worse off

Question 17

Counter-example to Temkin’s argument about the force of the LDO?

Answer 17

Following are examples of things which might make states of affairs better/worse off, even if there’s no person for whom it’s better/worse off:

• truth
• beauty
• integrity

Question 18

Meritocracy

Answer 18

1. Desirable positions should be offered to best-qualified through competitions that nobody is excluded from entering
2. Social goods distributed according to ‘merit’, a function of effort and ability

Question 19

Reasons meritocracy is desirable

Answer 19

1. EFFICIENCY – allocation of jobs and income promotes efficiency, from which everyone benefits
2. JUSTICE + DESERT – inherently just that most able/hard-working rewarded the most

Question 20

Unfairness objection to meritocracy

Answer 20

1. In societies w/significant social inequalities, people have unequal opportunities to acquire qualifications
2. Therefore seems unfair to reward people based on qualifications, as meritocracy does

Question 21

Rawls - conditions of fair equality of opportunity

Answer 21

(1) Meritocracy – desirable jobs offered to best-qualified through competition excluding nobody from entering
(2) Fair background – access to qualifications shouldn’t be influenced by socioeconomic background

Question 22

Unfairness objection to fair equality of opportunity

Answer 22

Fair equality of opportunity allows natural talent to influence distribution of qualifications, but this is just as undeserved as social background

Question 23

‘Dilemma’ of equality of opportunity

Answer 23

DILEMMA – theories of equality of opportunity either:

1. Ethically inconsistent (if equalise opportunity at a single moment in time); OR
2. Unrealisable (f try to equalise opportunity throughout life constantly, due to epistemic difficulties)

Question 24

Radical equality of opportunity

Answer 24

1. Reasons irrelevant to performance/competence don’t affect opportunities
2. each has equal chance to obtain relevant competencies
3. prospects not influenced by natural endowment of talent

Question 25

Kagan’s example to support view that desert trumps equality

Answer 25

1. Example - what if 1 person badly off (but has more than they deserve) and another well off (but has less than they deserve)?
2. Egalitarians - help the sinner (because they’re worse off)
3. Kagan - should help the saint (morally better action because saint deserves more and sinner already has more than deserved)

Question 26

Why does Scheffler reject a distributive characterisation of relational equality?

Answer 26

1. RE consists in persons having certain attitude, dispositions and respect for 1 another
2. Not just about having these distributed equally
3. Not RE if these ‘goods’ distributed equally, but at v. low level

Question 27

What does Cohen say that ‘respecting’ another as an equal is comprised of?

Answer 27

‘Respecting’ another as equal = regarding as equal + treating as equal

Question 28

Why might LE involve ‘shameful revelation’?

Answer 28

Because state must determine who lacks functioning through choice vs capability

Question 29

Formal equality of opportunity

Answer 29

Equal rights, no discrimination