Normative/moral Political philosophy and the egalitarian plateau

[moorobot]

We've been discussing this in the politics forum and I wanted to see what some other people thought.

In my view, following Ronald Dworkin, every plausible political philsophy has the same ultimate value, which is equality. They are all egalitarian theories. This suggestion is of course clearly false if by 'egalitarian theory' we mean a theory which supports an equal distribution of income.

But there is another, more abstract and more fundemental idea of equality in political theory, namely, the idea of treating people 'as equals'. A theory is egalitarian in this sense if it accepts that the interests each member of the community matter, and matter equally. Put another way, egalitarian theories require that the government treat its citizens with equal consideration; each citizen is entitled to equal concern and respect. Similarly, a normative theory of anarchy must show why anarchy is the form of social organization which best expresses the idea of treating people 'as equals'. The more basic notion of equality is found in Nozick's libertarianism as much as in Marx's communism. While lefitsts believe that equality of income or wealth is a precondition of treating people as equals, those on the right believe that equal rights over one's labour and property are a precondition for treating people as equals.

If a theory claimed that some people were not entitled to equal consideration by government, if it claimed that certain kinds of people just do not matter as much as others, then most people in the modern world would reject that theory immediately.

To me, each (contemporary) political theory is attempting to define the social, economic and political conditions under which the members of a society are treated as equals. Hence political theory is a matter of interpreting equality, and we might be able to show that one of the theories does a better job of living up to the standard that they all recognize.

Any thoughts? Could I extend this to all ethical/moral theory in general and say that all moral/ethical theories worth our time are premised on equality?

[guesswest]

Plato's tripartite state does't seem egalitarian to me?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Plato's tripartite state does't seem egalitarian to me?

[/ QUOTE ] Right, not every theory in the history of the world was egalitarian in this sense. But almost everybody in the modern world, as I mentioned, immediately rejects a theory like Plato's because of the inegalitarianism, right?

Plato in fact even argued that his theory was the best for everyone in that society, did he not???

[guesswest]

Sorry - read 'following Dworkin' as 'in accordance with', not 'post'.

Still, I'm not sure it's quite that universal. I have friends who'll argue hereditary legislative bodies like the house of lords in the UK are a good thing because they're objective and not pandering to an electorate. I'm pretty sure they'd make that argument while accepting it resulted in an inegalitarian state (to some extent).

[guesswest]

Just saw your edit. Certainly, but 'best' is a very different thing I think.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
A theory is egalitarian in this sense if it accepts that the interests each member of the community matter, and matter equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that, but it hardly means I would predicate a political philosophy on the idea of egalitarianism. In fact, egalitarianism isn't even consistent with that definition. According to your standard of achieving the most equality, a society in which everyone is miserable to an equal degree is superior to a society in which everyone is happy, but some are happier than others.

If that isn't your view, then you clearly value something above equality.

[madnak]

Plato clearly didn't mean "equal" when he said "best." On the contrary, he believed that an unequal system was best for everyone.

[tonysoldier]

Your very question is rooted in a humanist project which has been abandoned for the most part in continental philosophy. The very meaning or possibility of "equality" or of people being treated "the same" invokes a complex of troubling presuppositions. The idea of a basic sameness is as much dangerous as it is utopian. Political philosophy is not my field, but certainly philosophers like Nancy and Butler among many others would be an interesting, very divergent perspective.

[DougShrapnel]

Is a political theory that puts a 'salary cap' such as, no one can earn more the 20x, 50x, or 100x the minimum wage an egalitarian one?

[ QUOTE ]
If a theory claimed that some people were not entitled to equal consideration by government, if it claimed that certain kinds of people just do not matter as much as others, then most people in the modern world would reject that theory immediately.


[/ QUOTE ] Those that recieved more consideration by government almost never reject the theory, and certianly never immediately.

I'm not sure if theories based on equality are possible without a denial of evolution.

[guesswest]

We should be distinguishing luck egalitarianism here, ala Dworkin as mentioned by the OP. It does not diminish an egaliatarian political model to say that someone born with a 70 IQ is not going to be a nuclear physicist.