Egalitarianism: Justifying Equality in an Unequal World

In a world marked by stark inequalities, the concept of egalitarianism offers both a moral compass and a practical framework for understanding what equality should mean. But egalitarianism doesn’t demand that everyone be treated identically or that all differences be erased. Instead, it asks a more nuanced question: how can we justify treating people differently in some ways while maintaining their fundamental equal dignity?

Equality is not the same as uniformity
The prescriptive nature of equality
What makes a difference morally relevant?
Hugo Bedau’s radical egalitarianism
Equality in context: when equals deserve equal treatment
The danger of equality fundamentalism
Finding balance in egalitarian ideals

Equality is not the same as uniformity

One of the most persistent misconceptions about equality is that it requires treating everyone in exactly the same way. This confusion conflates equality with uniformity, leading to the mistaken belief that an equal society would be one where individuality disappears. Political theorists Harold Laski and Ernest Barker argued that equality is a derivative value from the supreme goal of personality development. For them, true equality creates conditions where each person can develop their unique capacities and potential.

Laski defined equality as the absence of special privileges and the provision of adequate opportunities for all. This means that equal treatment must account for individual differences rather than ignore them. A society that provides the same resources to a disabled person and an able-bodied person without considering their different needs hasn’t achieved equality-it has merely imposed uniformity while perpetuating actual inequality.

The key insight here is that equality requires us to consider what people need to flourish as individuals. When we impose identical treatment without regard to relevant differences, we prevent some individuals from developing their personalities and capabilities. This is why modern egalitarian thought emphasizes equality of opportunity and equality of capability rather than simple sameness in treatment.

The prescriptive nature of equality

Equality functions as a prescriptive principle rather than a descriptive fact. The principle of equality suggests a presumption for similar treatment unless relevant grounds for distinction are shown. This doesn’t claim that all people are factually identical in their abilities, circumstances, or needs. Instead, it asserts that people should be treated alike in fundamental human dignity.

According to the presumption of equality, cases should be presumed to be similar when it is not known whether they are similar or different. This creates what philosophers call a burden of proof: anyone who wants to treat people unequally must provide relevant reasons for doing so. The presumption starts with equal treatment, and deviations require justification.

This prescriptive approach recognizes that while human beings differ in countless ways, these differences don’t automatically justify unequal treatment. Race, gender, social class, or place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics that shouldn’t determine a person’s access to opportunities or resources. The burden lies with those advocating inequality to demonstrate why a particular difference is morally relevant to the distribution being considered.

What makes a difference morally relevant?

Philosophers like Bedau and Williams conceived this as a relevant reasons approach, where the basis for unequal treatment must be directly relevant to what is being distributed. For example, distributing medical care based on medical need is justified because health needs are relevant to healthcare distribution. But distributing healthcare based on wealth or social status lacks this relevant connection and therefore violates the principle of equality.

Hugo Bedau’s radical egalitarianism

Philosopher Hugo Bedau offered an important analysis of egalitarian thought through what he called radical egalitarianism. Bedau organized his review of egalitarian thought around the notion of radical egalitarianism to examine where the plea for the greatest possible equality among people breaks down. His work aimed to show how equality relates to sameness and distinguish the descriptive meanings of equality from questions of its desirability and justice.

Bedau’s approach to egalitarianism served as an instrument for social criticism and reform. His principles guide the elimination of unjustifiable inequalities while recognizing that not all differences in treatment constitute injustice. This framework acknowledges that some inequalities may be necessary or justified-such as those based on effort, skill, or desert-while others lack any moral justification.

The concept of pragmatic radicalism in Bedau’s work suggests treating persons alike unless circumstances require difference. This principle doesn’t automatically approve all existing inequalities, nor does it demand absolute equality in all things. Instead, it creates a framework for critically examining social inequalities and determining which can be morally defended.

Equality in context: when equals deserve equal treatment

The principle that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally sounds simple but requires careful interpretation. Isaiah Berlin explained that human beings should be treated equally in certain important respects, with the basis for any unequal treatment being directly relevant. The question becomes: in which respects are people equal, and which differences justify differential treatment?

Berlin’s analysis reveals an important truth about equality: it gains content only when particularized. Abstract declarations of equality mean little without specifying what kind of equality and in which domains. We might affirm political equality-one person, one vote-while accepting economic inequalities based on different career choices. We might support legal equality before the law while recognizing that medical treatment should vary based on individual health needs.

The danger of equality fundamentalism

Berlin cautioned that when equality conflicts with other human aims, fanatical insistence on it can disregard other crucial values. His theory of value pluralism recognizes that fundamental human values like liberty, equality, justice, and compassion are irreducibly multiple and can conflict with one another. Sometimes we must choose between competing values, and rigid adherence to equality at the expense of all other considerations leads to moral absurdity.

For instance, Berlin argued that liberty can conflict with equality, and the pursuit of perfect equality might require sacrificing individual freedom. A society that forcibly redistributes all resources to achieve absolute material equality might violate people’s freedom to make their own choices and pursue their own goals. This doesn’t mean abandoning equality, but rather recognizing it as one important value among several that must be balanced thoughtfully.

Finding balance in egalitarian ideals

The path forward lies not in choosing between absolute equality and complete inequality, but in thoughtfully applying egalitarian principles with attention to context. We should:

Recognize fundamental moral equality. All persons deserve equal dignity and respect as human beings, regardless of their abilities, circumstances, or characteristics.

Apply the presumption of equality. Start with the assumption that people should be treated similarly, placing the burden of proof on those who advocate differential treatment.

Identify relevant differences. Some differences-like need, merit, or voluntary choice-can justify unequal treatment in specific contexts. Others-like race, gender, or social class-generally cannot.

Balance competing values. Equality matters enormously, but so do liberty, efficiency, and other social goods. We must make difficult trade-offs between these values rather than pursuing any single value to destructive extremes.

Egalitarianism, properly understood, doesn’t demand that we ignore individual differences or impose gray uniformity. Instead, it calls us to create social conditions where everyone has genuine opportunities to develop their capabilities and live flourishing lives. It asks us to justify our inequalities rather than accept them as natural or inevitable. And it reminds us that while people differ in countless ways, these differences don’t diminish their fundamental worth as human beings.

What do you think? In what areas of life should we prioritize equality most strongly-political rights, economic outcomes, or something else? When faced with conflicts between equality and other values like liberty or efficiency, how should we decide which takes priority?

References

PDF 📄

Egalitarianism: Justifying Equality in an Unequal World

Table of Contents

Equality is not the same as uniformity 🔗

The prescriptive nature of equality 🔗

What makes a difference morally relevant? 🔗

Hugo Bedau’s radical egalitarianism 🔗

Equality in context: when equals deserve equal treatment 🔗

The danger of equality fundamentalism 🔗

Finding balance in egalitarian ideals 🔗