Equality

Equality in ethical and political thought centers on the belief that all human beings deserve the same moral consideration and the same treatment.  This principle is sometimes also addressed in terms of moral worth – the principle of equality states that all humans, in other words, have the same moral worth.

In modern times, equality has been held up as one of the central, if at times controversial, political ideals of liberal democracies.

In both political and ethical realms, two important issues arise in discussions of equality.  The first might be put as: (1) equality of what? The second as: (2) equality for whom?

Adequately addressing (1) requires discussion of multiple topics.  First, it should be noted that the claim of equality is a claim about how people should be treated morally, not a purported statement of fact.  Thus, equality as a value or political ideal does not aim to imply, nor does it imply, that all people have the same talents, skills, or physical abilities, for example.  Rather, the moral claim of equality implies that people of all levels of talent, skill, or ability be treated with equal moral consideration, and as having equal moral worth.

In the political sphere, equal treatment often amounts to the individuals of a society having equal civil, economic, and social rights, and an equal right to opportunity (sometimes addressed in terms of ability to secure various goods and services).

Stronger claims of equality are also made.  Some, for example, argue for equality of resources.  Others argue for equality of wealth and income.  That is to say, some claim that all individuals should earn an equal wage, regardless of their talents, skills, work ethic or, generally, occupation.   This view has a polarizing effect, attracting some and repelling others.

Although perhaps few individuals in capitalistic societies would accept this radical view of equal wages, many feel that some constraints on inequality of wages is not only reasonable, but an important moral consideration.

One example that highlights this issue is the vast income disparity, which has grown substantially in the United States since the 1960s, between corporate CEOs and the workers they employee.  This trend has been documented in a report entitled “The State of Working America” produced by the Economic Policy Institute.  According to the report:

“The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives,

especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the

increased divergence between CEO pay and a typical worker’s pay over time…

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than a typical

worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the

1990s and hit 298 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market

reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options), causing CEO pay to tumble to 143

times that of the average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has

recovered  and by 2007 was 275 times that of the typical worker. In other words,

in 2007 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than the

typical worker earned all year”

(emphasis added, http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa08-exec_pay.pdf).

Without endorsing views or policies that aim to completely level unequal wages, many people feel that there is something wrong with an employer earning up to 275 times more in wages than the individuals he or she employs.

Concluding the discussion of (1) equality of what?, it must again be stated that the moral claim of equality does not purport to be a statement of fact, but a moral claim about how other people should be treated.  The contexts in which the value of equality finds its expression, however, are various – including political, economic, civic, and social contexts.

Addressing (2) equality for whom? is also important to any discussion of equality.  As recent civil rights, woman’s rights, and gay rights movements around the world have amply demonstrated, in practice equality is not always distributed equally.  In many cases, these kinds of issues have come to be seen as a moral issue.  Most people, for example, view discrimination on the basis of race or gender as not only morally contemptible, but morally wrong.  Treating people unequally on the basis of race or gender, as was the case throughout much of our history, is now seen as an arbitrary, and unjustified, practice.

But if race and gender are arbitrary bases for excluding people from equal consideration and equal treatment, is an accidental feature like where someone happens to live not also arbitrary?  Some claim that it is, and that people and nations committed to equality should work to promote it around the globe, rather than limiting the scope of their efforts to the country in which they live.

Whatever way one cares about human equality, the commitment to human equality is referred to as ‘egalitarianism’ (this view, as with many other philosophical views, may take various forms – gender egalitarian, racial egalitarian, etc.).