LIBERALISM - Equality Flashcards
Definition of justice/social justice
Justice denotes a particular kind of moral judgement, one about the distribution of rewards and punishment.
Social justice refers to the fair distribution of material rewards and benefits in society e.g., wages, profits, housing, medical care, and welfare benefits.
What three types of Equality are there?
- FOUNDATIONAL
- FORMAL
- EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
FOUNDATIONAL EQUALITY
Supported by Classical Liberals and Modern Liberals
This indicates that human beings are seen to be born equal in the sense that each individual is of equal moral worth.
John Locke highlights this:
‘we are all equal in that we all have the same moral worth, and we all have the same right to life’
FORMAL EQUALITY
Supported by Classical Liberals and Modern Liberals
The idea that individuals should enjoy the same formal status within society, and have equal rights, regardless of gender, race, religion, or background.
Wollstonecraft and Friedan played a major role in helping Liberals accept legal and political equality of women.
FORMAL EQUALITY
Supported by Classical Liberals and Modern Liberals
What are the two forms?
Legal Equality: ‘equality before the law’, which insists that all citizens are treated alike by the law.
Political Equality: ‘one person, one vote’ – and each vote is of equal value (Especially modern ideas of liberal democracy).
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
Supported by Modern Liberals only
This means that each and ever individual should have the same chance to rise/fall in society.
What is social equality/equality of outcome?
Define it
Social equality, also known as equality of outcome, is where individuals have equal rewards or material circumstances.
Complete social equality is where people have the same rewards and material circumstances (e.g., wages, type of housing, wealth etc.).
Do liberals believe in social equality/equality of outcome?
Liberals do not believe in full social equality.
Full social equality is seen as unjust because it treats unlike individuals alike and does not adjust for their individual differences and merit.
RAWLS V ZOZICK
Is John Rawls really a liberal?
Rawls argued that the core liberal principle of foundational equality meant that individuals not only needed formal equality, but also social and economic equality.
He thought that a progressive tax could assist in equally redistributing wealth.
Robert Zozick argued that Rawl’s ideas were socialism, and a betrayal of individualism.
Rawls declined and said he wasn’t justifying socialism, but rather argued people WOULD choose a better society, but not at the expense of individual liberty.
RAWLS V ZOZICK
What did Rawls NOT argue for?
He did not argue for narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest in society. This ensured his philosophy was distinct from socialism.
He argued FOR social justice (redistributive justice), not social equality.
MERITOCRACY
Definition
Rule by merit - intelligence, and effort.
A meritocratic society is one where social position is determined by ability and hard work.
MERITOCRACY
CLAS LIBS
Classical liberals such as Samuel Smiles endorse strict meritocracy on both economic and moral ground.
Economically, they place heavy stress on incentives.
Morally, they stress that not all individuals’ merit deserves equal treatment.
MERITOCRACY
MOD LIBS
Modern liberals, on the other hand, have taken social justice to imply a belief in some measure of social equality.
E.g., in a Theory of Justice 1970, John Rawls has argued that economic inequality is only justifiable if it works to the benefit of the poorest in society.
