Henry Dickie
The worker needs to provide food for himself, and his family. As such he must find work. The large company is hiring, and many people are applying for jobs, more than there are vacancies. At this point the worker and the company do not have equality of opportunity, as the worker has no choice but to take whatever job is offered him, while the company has the freedom, knowing this, to dictate whatever terms, pay, and hours they want to the worker. As such the worker and the company do not have equality of opportunity. This justification can be recycled and used for many other conflicts, as it reconciles equality and liberty, as in the example the two parties are not equally free. Another concept equally important to reconciling liberty and equality is that of the social contract, which is the idea that by utilizing a public service provided in a country, one implicitly agrees to abide by the laws and regulations of a country, thus avoiding potential conflicts by stating that the people have already implicitly agreed to whatever happens, although it could still be said that, much like the worker in my earlier example, people have no choice but to agree to the contract. In addition to this, there is more supportive evidence for equality of opportunity over equality of outcome in the form of prison. One could make an argument that, as the prison population cannot leave prison, while the
general populace can go where they please, prisoners do not have equality. However, with an equality of opportunity system, this issue does not occur, as the prisoners had the opportunity to stay free. There is one final point to cover, that of partial versus total equality. Total equality is the standard form where everyone has exactly the same, and I have mainly written concerning this. However, partial equality guarantees a minimum level, which everyone must be above- for example everyone must not be homeless- you can have however many homes you like, but everyone must have at least one. Partial equality is far easier to justify and is often better than total equality. And so we come to the crux of the argument, whether a good society is an equal one. I would argue that it is, as equality is beneficial to all. I would also argue that it also depends on the type of equality being talked about: total equality in law is necessary, while equality of opportunity is debateable, and only possibly needed in partial form, and equality of outcome is often detrimental. However, while equality is necessary to a good society, it is not sufficient for one. There are many other requirements to a good society, such as liberty and law, that equality is unlikely to even be the most important, with liberty taking that spot. And so, in conclusion, equality is necessary, but not sufficient for a good society.
7
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker