Chapter 9: Equality and Wealth (Barrow 1982)
Most contemporary societies involve considerable inequality, different people get a different deal
Does equal treatment mean identical treatment or fair treatment?
Redressing particular inequalities vs some general unspecified inequality
No one interpretation of 'equality' or 'egalitarianism' will necessarily serve every occasion . In favour of specific equalities
Is equality of opportunity the answer?- measurable by state involvement, any further progress is one's own fault. Issues can sometimes be no fault of their own. Where does this begin and end?
Widespread view that whatever else we do we must ensure that certain minimum needs are satisfactorily met for all persons- need to determine this
Determining need never simply a matter of looking at what a person lacks
Concepts are social determined and structures and consequently always in transition. Marx idea, class system will always mean there will be working class misery. Somewhat true and not true
A wealthier society does not necessarily reduce inequality, just raise the cost of avoiding it as they grow economically. What constitutes poverty bound up in our expectations
The argument that the social climate may give us a new view of what we need for a healthy subsistence
What counts as poverty varies according to various expectations. Satisfying basic needs, minimum needs or avoiding poverty can never be entirely satisfactory
Both the communist formula and attempts to prop up equality of opportunity by safeguarding minimum needs need to be rejected as ineffective
Does Milton Friedman's ideas provide the answer?. Argument of a free and competitive situation produces the most wealth, unjust in its principles of distribution - fluctuating and negotiating
Introduces the Rawlsian principle of justice with the subsidiarity principle of he who risks all deserves all
A distribution may be unequal provided the outcome is better for the worst off than the alternative, more equal distribution
However it would be at least somewhat reasonable to opt for a system involving less inequality
Some might argue is is morally justifiable to have a society that generating more wealth is more important than a morally fair distribution
It may be legitimate for society to provide a constant set of controls, checks and balances to allow each individual to live his/her life
However what is a natural disadvantage in the theory of equality
Defence of inequality- it entitles us to rewards, the essence of meritocracy is that you should get what you earn . What does justify a greater slice of the cake is merit
What constitutes merit? as deserving, everyone should get what they deserve, merit with success would result in the conclusion that all inequalities are justified
One might say a person merits hus place in an organisation because of his skills
There is no morally adequate reason for allowing it to determine people's rewards in life
Is social importance of a job deemed rewardable and does this make other jobs socially unimportant
Achievement may be down to many other factors such as luck, birth, family, connections, hard work etc.
If achievement merits reward then why do we all receive the same reward
Needs vs talents. Cannot merit special accompanying rewards
Question of have they earned a better life?- each person is entitles to a basic set of services
Many of us think in a society more affluent than ours a fair distribution is morally more important than increasing our wealth
Friedman demand's each job gets a market rate. However, if the market economy rules, an end to minority interests, an end to people's security etc.
In the balance, the economic success that an individual will attain is largely a matter of luck
Economic egalitarianism cannot be discounted on the grounds that it is a product of envy , or capitalism on the grounds it protects the richest interests
There are differences between people which make it sensible and justifiable for them to live different kinds of life. There does not appear to be a single reason that would justify one person having more of the means of acquiring the benefits of his choice than another