PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY EQUALITY

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY BY NIGEL ASHFORD
Equality
“All men have equal rights but not to equal things.”
Edmund Burke
What is equality?
Equality is the principle that people should be treated the same or
equally. Yet people are obviously not the same or ‘equal’ in most of
their characteristics, in talents, abilities, looks or preferences. No one
believes that every human being is the same, so in what sense are people
equal? The debate about equality is about when it is, and is not, right
to treat people the same. At least five different types of equality can be
identified: moral (or formal) equality, equality before the law, political
equality, equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The first
three types are desirable; the last is highly undesirable; and the value of
equal opportunity depends upon how it is interpreted.
For most of the history of the world, equality was ignored as a moral
principle, or viewed as inconceivable and incompatible with reality. It
was considered normal that people should be treated in different ways,
such as different laws for barons and peasants. An early statement of
equality can be found in Aristotle when he proclaimed that no distinction
should be made between men who are equal in all respects relevant
to the issue in question, which of course raises the question of ‘what is
relevant?’ Christianity preached the principle that all souls were equally
worthy in the sight of God.
Thomas Hobbes claimed that men were equal in the state of nature, but it
was such an undesirable state of affairs, in which life was “solitary, nasty,
brutish and short,” men were eager to surrender this equality for order
under a strong ruler, the Leviathan. As so often in the history of modern
philosophy, a decisive break occurred under John Locke. He maintained
that men had equal rights in the state of nature, but retained them under
political rule. These rights to life, liberty and property belonged to all
human beings. It was in this sense of equal rights that the American
Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal.” Its
- 20 -
author, Thomas Jefferson, elsewhere strongly denounced those who felt
there was a natural hierarchy and that people should know their place in
society. “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their
backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately
by the grace of God.” The nineteenth century was a period of struggle
to establish the implications of equal rights in the abolition of slavery,
the provision of the principle of equality before the law, and political equality
in which all citizens were entitled to an equal right to vote. However,
women did not receive the vote in many countries until the early twentieth
century, and blacks and coloureds were denied equal political and property
rights in the South Africa of apartheid. It was in that century, with the rise
of socialism and communism, that equality became commonly associated
with material equality or ‘equality of results.’ The principle of equal opportunity
also gained ground in that century but then was transformed into a
different principle, almost identical to that of equal results.
Moral equality
Every human being is morally worthy of consideration, with the right to
make choices about their lives. This arises from their existence as a
human being, and is based on the belief that there are certain things
which every human being has in common with every other human
being (notably natural or human rights) and that made them worthy of
respect. Just because someone is of a different religion, or nationality, or
gender, does not mean that they do not matter. As a human being, one
has the right to live one’s life as one chooses, provided one does not
invade the lives of others. This is why such beliefs are in opposition to,
and would seek to ban, slavery, as the slave is forbidden the right to live
his own chosen life. Immanuel Kant developed a rule following from
this presumption of formal equality, sometimes called the categorical
imperative: “do unto others as you would have done to you.”
This is not of course to say that everyone is morally equal in their
behaviour. Clearly there are some people who behave better than others,
and some who commit evil acts. However, their lives remain of value.
Unfortunately there is no agreed consensus on the correct term to use
for this sense of equality. Various terms include formal equality, moral
- 21 -
equality, equality of status, equality of worth, and equality of respect;
none of them truly capture this principle.
Equality before the law
The most important political consequence of the acceptance of moral
equality is best identified in the principle of legal equality or equality
before the law. This states that the law should treat people impartially,
regardless of irrelevant characteristics, such as nationality, ethnic group,
wealth, class, gender, religion, or race. This is why justice is ‘blind’ to all
factors other than those directly related to the case. Legal equality is thus
strongly linked to the principle of the rule of law. Equality before the
law was the basis for the early claims of the women’s rights movement
that women should be entitled to the same legal rights as men, such as
the right to own property and to vote.
The Roman orator Cicero noted the moral distinction between different
types of equality. “While it is undesirable to equalize wealth, and everyone
cannot have the same talents, legal rights at least should be equal
among citizens of the same commonwealth.” The French Declaration of
the Rights of Man in 1789 stated that the law “should be the same for
all...and all being equal in its sight, are equally eligible to all honours,
places and employments, according to their different abilities, without
any other distinction than that created by their virtue and talents.”
Political equality
Moral equality is also the source of political equality, in the sense that
everyone is entitled to vote unless there is a valid and legitimate reason
why that person should be denied it. As the interests of all humans are
worthy of consideration in the making of common decisions, so all
should have the vote to ensure that their particular interests were considered
by the elected politicians. Exceptions might be children, the mentally
handicapped and convicted criminals, who are either incapable of
identifying their own true interests or are felt to have forfeited that right
as a result of their failure to obey the laws. Thus there is a presumption
of equal political rights, which one should be very reluctant to betray.
- 22 -
Equality of opportunity
Equality of opportunity is based on the view that individuals should
have the opportunity, or chances, available to them to succeed in life,
as they interpret success. This is usually conveyed by the use of sporting
metaphors, such as an equal start in life, or an equal playing field. There
should be an equal start in the race of life but with an unequal finish.
Margaret Thatcher described this as “the right to be unequal.” The goal
is that careers should be open to the talented and promotion should be
by ability, not due to family, sexual or political connections.
Such a society would be a meritocracy, or rule by the able and talented,
who achieved their positions through merit. Merit has been defined as
ability plus effort. Equality of opportunity is about removing unfair
obstacles to achievement. Social position should be based on individual
effort and ability. This is strongly linked with the idea of education for
all, so that everyone can develop themselves to their full capacity.
Advocates and opponents of meritocracy both acknowledge that the
consequence could be quite major differences (or inequalities) in results.
This view is based on the idea of equal liberties.
However, it might be better to describe this as the principle of maximum
opportunity. In practice, it is never possible to achieve equal
opportunity, and it would indeed be undesirable. One of the greatest
sources of unequal opportunity is the family, when there is a difference
between warm, loving parents who care deeply about their children, and
indifferent parents who care more about their own selfish desires. It is
impossible to ensure that every parent is kind and loving, so the strict
application of the principle of equal opportunity would require taking
the children away from their parents and bringing them all up together
collectively. This would be unacceptable to anyone who believes in the
value of the family. A full commitment to erasing any differences in
opportunities would require a totalitarian society in which the state was
able to control every aspect of life to ensure that no one obtained an
‘unfair’ advantage, such as a better teacher.
- 23 -
Positive discrimination
The idea of equal, as distinct from maximum, opportunity is behind the
drive towards positive discrimination, or disproportionate but favourable
shares to groups, as a means of redressing past and present inequalities of
treatment. This can take at least three forms: outreach, encouraging
minorities to pursue positions; preferences, in which one group is preferred
over another; and quotas, where equal opportunity is said to exist
only when the same proportion is employed or represented in a body as
their percentage in the population. Originally the idea meant outreach,
making minorities aware of the opportunities available and encouraging
their pursuit. This is unobjectionable. However the idea has come to
mean preferences and quotas, which is objectionable.
Positive discrimination should be opposed and is itself a denial of the
four types of equality identified above. First, groups are favoured on
irrelevant grounds. The benefits of discrimination are often directed to
the relatively educated and successful members of the groups. Second,
unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favourable
treatment of totally different individuals today who happen by an accident
of birth to belong to the same group. Thirdly, any discrimination
causes a backlash against the new privileged. Instead of being recognised
as having achieved their position on grounds of merit, the assumption is
that they were favoured in some way, and this reduces the confidence
and trust of the rest of the population. Fourthly, it is unfair to the members
of the majority group that they should be treated unequally. Most
important of all, it is fundamentally a denial of the principle of formal
and legal equality as people are treated not on the basis of their own
virtues and faults, what Martin Luther King called “the content of our
character,” but on irrelevant characteristics such as gender or race.
Equality of outcome
This is the most frequently used sense of equality, best described as
egalitarianism, which is that there should be equal shares for all. Instead
of being concerned with the conditions in which people participate in
society, this is concerned with results, with the end of the race, a move
- 24 -
from opportunities to rewards. All runners will finish the race together
or will receive the same rewards whether they were first or last. Equality
of outcome is concerned with material equality or equality of living conditions.
This requires redistribution from the better off to the worse off,
where the primary goal is to eliminate the gap.
Egalitarians often invite confusion as to whether they mean equality
of income or wealth. Even if two people received the same income,
inequality of wealth would quickly ensue, as one carefully saved part of
his income or spent it on long term benefits, such as improving his
home, whilst the other spent all the money on goods with only short
term benefits, such as smoking, and saved none. Very soon, the first
person would be much wealthier than the second, although they both
received the same income.
Together with most proponents of moral equality, one should reject
equality of outcome as a desirable goal. First, it is unnatural. The natural
condition of man is to have inequality of material possessions. It requires
unnatural and coercive acts to change it. Individuals left to their own
devices will rapidly achieve differences in incomes, wealth and living
standards. Second, it would require a massive denial of individual liberty
and massive state interference in people’s lives. Third, it would be highly
inefficient as it would reduce incentives to work and produce. Why
work if you know that you will receive the same benefits regardless of
your behaviour? Fourth, it is unjust as people are entitled to receive the
benefits for which they have worked. Fifth, wealth has to be produced.
Egalitarians are so concerned with redistributing wealth, that they rarely
consider the link between production and distribution. If one produces
and then discovers that, without your permission, part of your wealth is
given to others, you will reduce your wealth production. You will
respond to incentives. The consequence is the loss of wealth to society as
a whole. It is an illusion to believe that distribution can be changed with
no effect on wealth creation. Finally, ‘who will equalise the equalisers?’
Some one or body has to have the power to decide who gets what. The
members of this elite will have considerably greater power than any one
else and will use that power in their own favour. While members of the
communist nomenklatura often had wages similar to others, they were
- 25 -
able to use their political power to improve their own conditions. To
achieve equality of results would require massive inequality of political
power.
For equality, against egalitarianism
A just political system would therefore show respect for: equality
before the law, to develop a legal system which treats equally all who
come before it; equal political rights, when all are entitled to the vote
and the right of free expression; and equal opportunities in the sense
of careers open to the talented. However a free and just society
would reject positive discrimination, redistribution and egalitarianism.
- 26 -
Reading
Peter Bauer, Equality, Third World and Economic Delusion, London,
Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1981, Part 1.
Antony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, New York, Prometheus, 1981.
Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, London, Secker & Warburg,
1980, chapter 5.
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, London, Routledge, 1962,
chapter 6.
William Letwin, Against Equality, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell, 1974,
chapter 8.
Questions for thought
1. Is the gap between the wealth of the richest and the poorest in society
a problem?
2. Do you believe that all your citizens are treated equally before the
law?
3. How can we maximise economic and social opportunities?