Body:

CONSERVATIVE ACCOUNT OF EQUALITY

·        Conservatives believe that individuals have historical rights to their property.

·        Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps, is in itself just. So as long as property is acquired through just means i.e. legal means, then the individual should not have that property taken away.

·        Therefore, TAXATION and REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH to shore up inequalities of opportunity violates the rights of the individual and leads to an unequal society.

·        Equality of opportunity is dismissed and replaced by a concern for the protection of the individual and his/her property rights.

·        Nozick believes equality is not about the receiver of benefits, but about the rights of those who are giving.

·        Aristotle believes that it is the worst form of inequality to treat unequal things equally, as much as it is to treat equal things unequally.

·        CRITICISM – there is an emphasis that historical justice itself gives the individual the right to use their property at will. However, what if the property was acquired in past generations by an unjust manor i.e. by breaking the law? Should the victims (who are now the present generation) therefore be rectified of their losses to readjust equality in society? How far back in history?

LIBERAL ACCOUNT OF EQUALITY

·        Equality of opportunity is where the environment in which an individual is born should not overly affect their life opportunities compared to those around him/her.

·        Each individual should therefore be allocated a set of primary social goals such as education, shelter and good.

·        Some form of redistribution should be granted, so income-based tax and a welfare state.

·        Rawls believes the ‘positions...[should be] open to all’.

·        Fairness in society is captured by the difference principles. The worse off are advantaged by the filtering through of economic, technologic advances from those who are best off in society. Hence these apparent inequalities actually characterize an equal society as all strands of society benefit from the protection of the more privileged property owners.

·        CRITICISMS – more of a reduction of inequalities in society.

·        Still unequal as it is unfair to tax and take away more property from the rich in order to give to the poor.

SOCIALIST ACCOUNT OF EQUALITY

·        Equality of outcome is when the individual should be granted the most extensive set of liberties possible, but these should not inhibit the liberties of others [Rawls].

·        Liberal concept of property rights should be protected as a priority.

·        Whilst some equality of opportunity is granted, if outcome is made equal then society is not equal, because you unequally treat those individuals with more property than others by taking it away.

·        Thus, no form of equality of outcome is pursued by liberals as this would involve the unfair removal of property from them.

·        Socialist system for equality is based on EQUALITY OF OUTCOME – where each person should have lifetime access to what they need including education, health, shelter, food and some form of wealth.

·        Anything that is surplus should be distributed based on MERIT, a ROTA, or RANDOMLY.

·        Requires a WELFARE MAXIMUM, as well as the needs-based welfare minimum, to ensure people do not gain an unfair outcome. This makes sure that people do not get too much, thereby causing inequality to others or a strain on resources, and also that people do not get too little, which is useless.

·        Requires the REPLACEMENT of the current system (capitalism) into a communist state. – This shows how difficult it would be to bring about equality – therefore some could argue although ideologically there is a concern for it, in reality, full equality is not a concern – merely the theoretical goal to aim towards.

·        OTHER CRITICISMS – where is the line drawn? – Should happiness be guaranteed?

·        Would productivity suffer? A guaranteed outcome, with an individual gaining a guaranteed wage means that any rational individual would not be working to their full potential, therefore working inefficiently.

·        If equality is the end, then are other means such as justice sacrificed? Some individuals may do the minimum requirement whilst others do overtime and extra work – should they both receive the same equality of outcome?? Is that not an inequality in attempting to achieve equality?