POLISCI 2537F - Week 7 Notes PDF

Manny Purewal PoliSci 2537F Equality Equality – Two Camps.. ➔ Distributive Egalitarians ◆ Equality means equal shares ➔ Social Egalitarians ◆ Equality means equal status ➔ Offer a different picture of what an egalitarian society looks like ➔ Offer different justificatio...

Manny Purewal PoliSci 2537F Equality Equality – Two Camps.. ➔ Distributive Egalitarians ◆ Equality means equal shares ➔ Social Egalitarians ◆ Equality means equal status ➔ Offer a different picture of what an egalitarian society looks like ➔ Offer different justifications for favouring equality Distributive Egalitarianism ➔ Members disagree about: ➔ Equality means we need equal shares of some stuff (money, well-being, opportunity, ability to do things) ◆ Which inequalities matter ◆ Does holding people responsible for their actions license an unequal distribution Social Egalitarianism ➔ Concerned with the quality of the relationships in society ➔ People can relate to each other on equal terms (in regards to social respect) ➔ Eradication of hierarchy, oppression, domination, etc ➔ Society of equals ➔ e.g. not completely disinterested in the distribution of money Is Equality Valuable PerSe? Imagine; there’s two planets. They do not know each other exist (meaning they cannot interact) Plentificus ➔ Tons of resources ➔ Habitants of this planet are well off ➔ Great lives Scarcitius ➔ Much worse off ➔ Planet just does not have same resources ➔ They are doing bare minimum ◆ Have to work a lot harder to produce things If we want the both planets to be equal, we can some things from Plentificus, so they both have the same amount = Equality ➔ Plentificus people are made worse off in order for equality Another Example; in society some people are born and blind and some are sighted ➔ Intrinsic Equality would say that at least in some respect it would be better for everyone to be blind Levelling Down Objection ➔ If equality is intrinsically valuable, then the situation after levelling down (B) must be better than before (A) But this is counterintuitive! What About.. ➔ In 2017 presenter Samira Ahmed sued the BBC for gender pay discrimination ➔ She was paid £400/episode and her male counterpart Jeremy Vine was paid £3000/episode ◆ Counterpart: a part or thing that matches another ➔ Wouldn’t it be better at least in one respect that they got paid the same? ◆ If their job titles match, they should be paid the same Response to the Objection ➔ There is a plurality of values ➔ Weigh intrinsic value of equality against others (e.g. fairness, utility, etc) ➔ In the Ahmed/Vine case equality + fairness > utility ➔ In the Plentificus/Scarcitius case equality < utility Promoting a Society of Equals 1. Relational Equality ➔ All (adult) permanent members of society are equal citizens  ➔ Equal in status (should relate to each other as equal in a democratic society) – able to relate to each other as equals ➔ Contrasts with; ◆ Caste Systems/Class Hierarchies ◆ Dictatorial/Authoritarian Regime ➔ Equality of ‘condition’ gets things backwards ➔ Instead of trying to equalize distribution ◆ Ask what distributive arrangements are needed to have a society of equals ◆ Not equality of wealth but not massive disparities either If some people are so poor that they are excluded/marginalized then that would interfere with Relational Equality Advantage in one area (wealth) would create advantages in other areas (e.g. health care) Oppression - I.M. Young ➔ Iris Marion Young’s Viewpoint is: ◆ Experienced by groups such as women, racial minorities, the poor, etc ◆ Structural injustice woven into the institutions that govern us ➔ Five different forms of oppression 1. Groups exposed to violence in order to humiliate/stigmatise 2. Groups are marginalised 3. Groups powerless to influence decisions that affect their lives 4. Dominant group’s worldview imposed on subordinates 5. Exploitation Oppression – Other Views ➔ Anderson’s Viewpoint: Stigmatisation ◆ Subordinate groups represented negatively ➔ Fricker’s Viewpoint: Testimonial Injustice ◆ Listener gives a speaker’s views less weight because of their prejudices Egalitarian Ethos - Wolff ➔ There is more to a society of equals than just a scheme of distribution of material goods…[there are also] goods that depend on the attitude people have towards each other.’ (Wolff 1998, p. 104) ➔ What is a good way to live together? ➔ Egalitarian societies share a commitment to egalitarian values that inform their everyday behaviour and practices Currency of Equality What Should Be Equalized  1. Resources 2. Welfare 3. Opportunities Resources ➔ Resources are necessary for a good life ➔ Resources can be: ◆ Impersonal – wealth, services, property, etc ◆ Personal – health, talents, etc Ronald Dworkin ➔ Equality of resources is satisfied when everyone has an equally satisfactory share ➔ What does an ‘equally satisfactory share’ mean ◆ The Island Auction Imagine we are all shipwrecked on an island together We want to divide up the island’s resources equally (Auction off each resource) At the end, no one should envy anyone else’s bundle (called the envy test) ○ Personal and Impersonal ◆ Remember: personal resources are non-transferable ◆ Inequalities in personal resources should be compensated by extra (or less) impersonal resources (vice versa) E.g. someone blind would receive more impersonal resources, versus someone who has a huge advantage already would receive less Example: A society distributes wealth equally. One person is disabled and another is not. The disabled person needs to use their wealth for medical needs; the non-disabled person can use their wealth to pursue their goals. ○ Is this really equal? Redistributing impersonal resources mitigates the effects of a prior inequality in the distribution of personal resources ◆ ‘Luck Egalitarianism’ Definition: Equalizing the effects of undeserved good/bad luck Ronald Dworkin “performed for egalitarianism the considerable service of incorporating within it the most powerful idea in the arsenal of the anti-egalitarian right; the idea of choice and responsibility” (Cohen 1989, p. 933) Coined by Elizabeth Anderson (a critic) ○ Dworkin thinks the currency of equality is resources ○ Initial distribution of resources is equal if it passes the envy test  ◆ His idea..find an ambition-sensitive, endowment-insensitive distribution The view combines two ideas: 1. People should be compensated for underserved bad luck 2. Compensation should come from the part of other people’s good luck that is undeserved Different Types of Luck: ○ Brute Luck ◆ good/bad luck that is completely random ◆ good/bad luck that is taken on by a person ○ Option Luck ○ “If I buy a stock on the exchange that rises, then my option luck is good…If I am hit by a falling meteorite whose course could not have been predicted, then my bad luck is brute.” (Dworkin, 2000, p. 73) ○ ONLY bad brute luck is compensated Implications and Criticisms ○ We don’t deserve the products of our natural talent or hard work ○ Harsh on victims of bad option luck ○ Wrongly focuses on equal stuff rather than equal respect ○ Condescending/demeaning to victims of bad brute luck? “To the disabled: Your defective native endowments or current disabilities, alas, make your life less worth living than the lives of normal people. To compensate for this misfortune, we the able ones will give you extra resources…To the stupid and untalented: Unfortunately, other people don’t value what little you have to offer in the system of production. Your talents are too meagre to command much market value. Because of the misfortune that you were born so poorly endowed with talents, we productive ones will make it up to you: we’ll let you share in the bounty of what we have produced with our vastly superior and highly valued abilities. To the ugly and socially awkward: How sad that you are so repulsive to people that no one wants to be your friends or lifetime companion. We won’t make it up to you by being your friend or your marriage partner…but you can console yourself in your miserable loneliness by consuming these material goods that we, the beautiful and charming ones, will provide. And who knows? Maybe you won’t be such a loser in love once potential dates see how rich you are.” (Anderson, 1999, p. 305) ◆ Ambition-Sensitive ◆ Ambitions: Person’s tastes, preferences, life plans, etc.  ◆ Ambition-Sensitive Distribution Reflects people’s voluntary choices about their goals, projects and preferences ◆ Permits inequalities in the overall (not initial) distribution of resources Example: Mohit may earn more than Alex because Mohit chooses to work longer hours and Alex prefers spending his time in the gym ◆ Endowment-Insensitive Distributive ought not to be influenced by the distribution of personal resources (natural talents, propensities, etc) Example: Some of the shipwrecked islanders aren’t able to produce as much because their talents are limited by physical impairments. If they fare worse over time, the resulting distribution is endowment-sensitive and unequal ◆ Compensation Solution to endowment-sensitivity is to compensate people with fewer personal resources… but how much? ○ Hypothetical Insurance Market ◆ Insurance against being born with a disadvantage/impairment ◆ How much would the average person pay for this insurance? ◆ This estimated premium becomes compensation policy Example; ○ We can anticipate which hypothetical insurance policies the average person would purchase to cover themselves in case they were born blind ○ Based on how much we think the average person would pay for this insurance, we can estimate how much blind people in the real world should be compensated ○ In the real world, this comes from taxation, not insurance Equality of Welfare ➔ Welfare: happiness or preference satisfaction ➔ “welfare is what really matters to people, as distinct from money and goods, which matter to them only instrumentally, so far as these are useful in producing welfare.” (Dworkin 2000, p. 31) Problems with Equality of Welfare  ➔ Adaptive Preferences ◆ Idea that people change their desires in light of their circumstances ➔ People change their desires in light of circumstances ➔ “A thoroughly deprived person, leading a very reduced life, might not appear to be badly off in terms of the mental metric of desire and its fulfilment, if the hardship is accepted with non-grumbling resignation” (Amartya Sen 1992, p. 55) Expensive Tastes ➔ Equalising welfare could require giving more resources to people with ‘champagne and caviar’ tastes ◆ Example: Natalie loves to drink champagne and go to the opera. Jackie is happy drinking beer and watching sports on TV ➔ Equality of welfare requires giving Natalie more resources Cohen: ➔ Egalitarians should not “finance expensive tastes which people chose to develop” and “a person with wantonly expensive tastes has no claim on us” (Cohen 2011, p. 20) Arneson: ➔ “Individuals can arrive at different welfare levels due to choices they make for which they alone should be held responsible” and it’s “inappropriate to insist upon equality of welfare when welfare inequality arises through the voluntary choice of the person who gets lesser welfare” (Arneson 1989, p. 83-84) Opportunities ➔ Minimal: no formal limits on people’s opportunity; no prejudices ➔ Conventional: life prospects should depend on ability and work, not social background ➔ Radical: life prospects should depend on only those things that you choose Question to Ponder… Is equality about sameness or difference? ➔ Sometimes you have to treat people differently to receive the outcome you want ➔ Treating people the same, might still result in different outcomes (unequal result) Sufficientarianism ➔ “A fat man eating quails while children re begging for bread is a disgusting sight” (Orwell 1938) ◆ ​Sufficientarianism: It is morally good for as many people as possible to have life conditions that are above the threshold required for a good enough quality of life  Justifies transfers of resources from better to worse off people in order to increase the number of people who have sufficiency The Gist ➔ What matters is that everyone has enough… ➔ …not that some have more than others Variations ➔ Strict Sufficientarianism – the ‘headcount’ view ◆ Always prioritise bringing people to the threshold ◆ No obligations above the threshold ➔ Moderate Sufficientarianism ◆ Priority to those the furthest below the threshold ◆ Disagreement about obligations above the threshold ➔ Both: ◆ Lexical priority to those below the threshold over any benefits to those above Positives ➔ Fits our intuitions ➔ Not susceptible to the levelling-down objection ➔ Avoids the objections to luck egalitarianism Problem Where is the threshold? ➔ But what if… ◆ The threshold were 49 – sufficientarianism is indifferent ◆ The threshold were 51 – (strict) sufficientarianism gives the benefits to B