Can inequality ever be justified?
Ali Neden
Inequality is an inevitability. No two beings are exactly the same, owing either to inborn talents or a range of external factors. This lack of identity has always led, and will always lead, to differences in their environment, however developed the society they are born into is. These two beings, however similar they are, will be judged differently by members of that society and so will be treated differently. Even in the hypothetical idea of cloning, where two beings can be genetically modified to be identical, and thus identical inborn talents will be present, these two beings will not be identical as each individual will have their own unique experience. There is no escaping this. This natural process, that not any two individuals are identical, is inevitable in this so-called ‘state of nature’ or ‘natural state’, and thus inequality itself cannot be avoided. Having established that inequality is inevitable, we must try and conclude whether inequality within a society is justifiable or if it is not then should a state make any attempt to try and rectify that situation, and if it does, to what are the maximum and minimum extents to which it can justifiably go. These inequalities come in many forms: from social to economical, to lack of free speech and property entitlement (inequalities). The first of these inequalities are inborn talents. In a society every individual has a different set of abilities. They may be more intelligent, more likeable or more good- looking than the rest. Thus in a natural state this individual would be given a high ranking in that society, and the rest would follow suit, each individual having a distinct place in society. This idea is very much in line with the values of most capitalist societies, that each member of society received what he deserves
naturally in terms of skills and also by how he works or how he manages situations, which we will come onto later. However, is it correct that an individual should receive more just because he is bon with more talent than another? Is this idea that an individual should gain more because of what he is born with justifiable? John Rawls writes in his Theory of Justice that a man should not receive more because of inborn talents. He argues that every member of society should receive an equal portion of the total sum of society’s output and that these ‘inborn talents’ should count for nothing as they did not come through labour. This is opposed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia who states that these inborn talents should be justified as they do not infringe on the liberties of others; in short, these inequalities should be permitted as they did not affect others’ liberties or talents, thus inequality here in society can be justified. The second of these inequalities is historical and relates to property entitlement and punishment and injustice in past generations. In a natural state, the individual would have the decision of whom to give his belongings when he died but it would be society’s role to ensure that his wish had been carried. Therefore it is not a fundamental liberty of an individual to receive possessions from the deceased, only a liberty to assign possessions. The same applies to injustice. If a man is wronged then it is his liberty to receive compensation for that wrong, not the liberty of future generations of his family to seek compensation from that injustice. However many would argue that it is a liberty, that they still deserve compensation. Therefore is this
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker