Equality
egalitarianism
The principle that people are in some fundamental respect to be treated as equals — and the long argument about which respect, since equality in one dimension usually produces inequality in another.
In practice
Identical pay bands applied across cities with different living costs equalize the number and not the life, which is the capability objection in practical form.
The common mistake
Arguing about whether to value equality. Every position values equality of something, so the productive question is always which dimension and at what cost to the others.
Almost everyone accepts that people are in some sense equals. The disagreement is about what that commits you to, and it is sharp because equalizing one thing generally unequalises another.
Equality of what?
Amartya Sen put the question that reorganised the field: every serious political position claims equality of something, so the real dispute is over the dimension.
- Equality before the law — the same rules apply to everyone. Widely accepted and compatible with enormous material difference.
- Equality of opportunity — positions open to all, decided on relevant qualities. The difficulty is that opportunity depends on circumstances nobody chose, so a genuine version requires intervening in families and upbringing further than most are willing to go.
- Equality of outcome — the distribution itself is equalized. Maintaining it requires continuous interference with voluntary choices, which is Nozick's objection.
- Equality of capability — what people are actually able to do and be. Nussbaum and Sen's approach, which handles the fact that identical resources convert into very different lives.
Rawls's position
Rawls argued for equal basic liberties for everyone, with material inequalities permitted only where they improve the position of the worst off. It is not equality of outcome: an unequal arrangement is acceptable if the alternative leaves the least advantaged worse. See justice.
The levelling-down objection
If equality is valuable in itself, then making the better-off worse without helping anyone is an improvement in one respect. Most people find that absurd, which suggests what we actually value is the position of the worst off rather than the gap — a distinction between prioritarian and strictly egalitarian views.
The trade-off with liberty
Equality and liberty pull against each other, because people using freedom differently produces difference. Any position has to say how much of one it will trade for the other, and pretending the tension is not there is the characteristic evasion on both sides.
Concept web
Open the full webQuestions
What is equality in political philosophy?
The principle that people should in some fundamental respect be treated as equals. The dispute is over which respect — before the law, in opportunity, in outcome, or in capability.
What is equality of opportunity?
That positions should be open to all and decided on relevant qualities. Its difficulty is that opportunity depends on circumstances nobody chose, so a genuine version reaches deep into upbringing.
What is the levelling-down objection?
That if equality is valuable in itself, making the better-off worse without helping anyone counts as an improvement. Most find this absurd, suggesting what matters is the position of the worst off.