Egalitarian and a Non-egalitarian Principle of Distribution - Essay Example

What is the difference between an egalitarian and a non-egalitarian principle of distribution? Which one is preferable? Introduction Egalitarianism is a prominent trend in which people should get equality in all factors of life. It has been prominent in political and social philosophy thus becoming central in moral philosophy from the late 20th Century. In this philosophy, people ought to get the same, be treated equally, treat our friend as equal, and all people should enjoy equal social status. The egalitarianism principles rest on the background that all mankind are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. Although these principles are widely accepted, there exist variant views especially in Western European and Anglo American philosophical traditions. Egalitarians believe that equality and justice are closely well connected. Firstly, they think unfair life prospects should be equalized. Secondly, equality is the most important constitutive and intrinsic worth of justice. Thirdly, welfare has to be increased. Fourthly and fifthly that justice is comparative, and inequalities are just when advantages are destroyed in the name of justice respectively. One of the most important views of the existence of egalitarianism is the Christian doctrine that God loves all mankind equally despite their social economic status (Raz 254-257). The existence of egalitarianism is prudent for there are different types of equality. For example, treatment of people equally in the society. Great example is the modern democratic societies where everyone has equal chances to hold any position and be treated equally like any other person. An egalitarian denies Cross-Temporal Additivity because inequality is not additive over time. Inequality partly determines value and hence value is not additive over time. In economics, egalitarianism would mean equality to opportunity such that the government ought not to discriminate against citizens or even hinder prosperity opportunities to them. The government has to advocate for equal prosperity for all citizens. Milton Friedman a free-market economist supports equality-of-opportunity economic egalitarianism. The principles of non egalitarianism hold that equality is not bad or good at the same time, and there are several forms of egalitarianism depending on one’s interpretation of equality and values. The non egalitarian principle suggests that, value of two events is equal given that they occupy no overlapping times interval. This claim portrays people’s view of justice. The treatment of people justly depends on how other people are treated. Therefore, it is unfair to distribute resources if people are denied their share despite the amount to be given. What is important is the allocation ratio to each person and the kind of feeling that arise thereafter. Non-Egalitarianism uses three general moral principles namely: Intrapersonal Non-Egalitarianism, Strong Supervenience of Utility-Value and Cross Temporal Additivity of Utility Value. The Intrapersonal Non-Egalitarianism principle supports that the equality in the distribution of utility is evaluative neutral in an individual’s life. The Strong Supervenience of Utility-Value principle states that the two events have the same utility value if they are intrinsically identical in terms of non-evaluative properties. Lastly the Cross-Temporal Additivity of Utility Value principle states that utility-value of fusion of for instance event A and B is equal to utility value of A plus utility value of B. This holds as long as the two events occupy non-overlapping time intervals. Scope and Role of Distributive Principles This principle varies greatly in various dimensions relevance to distributive justice (wealth, income, jobs utility among others). The variation between the egalitarian and non-egalitarian principle occurs in the nature of the recipient and the basis of distribution. It covers the distribution and economic burden among individuals in society. This principle forms the principles of Anglo American debate on justice. According to these principles, people are born, stay in rigid economic positions where the distribution of economic benefits are fixed either by nature or God or nature. It became a real topic in government and nongovernmental distribution on economic benefits. The argument arises for the government change and enacts laws to determine how to distribute economical befits on different peoples in the society. There exists misconception that this principle can be avoided by different people and government. This results to confusion on the nature of choices facing society. Strict Egalitarianism These principles call for all parties to get equal shares of all surpluses. This reflects equal rights in modern society despite putting across good arguments. These principles have two weaknesses built bases on non egalitarianism. People get only equal share if there is a way of measuring the value of the surplus. Although money is recognized measure in some cases, it is useless in others e.g. in legal rights. This is evident the way people value resources over different times, which is their interest to interchange their entitlement with different things. There exists a problem on the amount of time the preferred pattern of distribution should be achieved. This forms a strong point again about this principle. Although egalitarian see this principle as fundamental, it limits freedom on what people deserve thus failing to achieve the best outcome for all people. The Difference Principle This principle is built on John Rawls work who argues that here are two conditions that built general social distribution. Everyone has an equal claim on basic rights and liberties like speech, religion etc. Rawls initiated injustice emanating from a similar position of the least well-off. The wells off people in the society are better off than the lower echelons, and it is possible for them to do away with the less well off from all important positions. They also view it as not maximizing the outcome of the utilitarian objection for it is not sensitive to people contribution to the social surplus. Resource-based Principles Initial equal resource access is the just distribution according to egalitarian principle. It claims that people should be allowed equal resource access at initial stages despite their social status. This means equal purchasing power in all goods and social amenities. Its aim is sensitive to people’s ambitions endowment and contribution. Utilitarian and libertarian regard this principle as an objection to development. This is because it does not account actual difference in talent and handicapped. There is no clarity on the definition of what is natural and what is developed. Instead, they claim that people should be allowed to access resources according to their capabilities and needs (Parfil 200-2014). Welfare-based Principles Welfare-based principles focus on the maximization of welfare equality in the society. The principles face a great challenge. It is opposed because it does not focus on the actual pattern of distribution based on contribution. It puts great emphasis on the welfare outcome depending on the distribution patterns. This makes it insensitive to the differences between people. For instance, the overall goal of maximization leaves massive unequal society for welfare is spread around less evenly. It does not support negative vices in the society like racism, homophobes etc because maximization gives equal weight of preference. It cannot rule out any distribution pattern thus it puts emphasis on empirical information, which sometimes is not available or accessible. Libertarian Principles According to this principle, distribution of resources should conform to three principles of liberty; legitimate acquisition, transfer and rectification. In the legitimate acquisition, one owns something naturally and is entitled to transfer it to anyone they wish to, whereby they legitimately acquires what is transferred. Legitimate acquisition and transfer are just on resource distribution. The criticism behind this principle is that, it perpetuates historical injustices. However, property rights are only possible within legal and political frameworks that require cooperation of others (Swift 49-78). Conclusion The non egalitarian principle is preferred because it allows complexity to suit everyone in society. It emphasizes that equality is not good or bad at the same time depending on personal interpretation of equality. This leaves a person with many options on what he or she perceives as justice or injustice. The non egalitarian principles provide an avenue to distribute resources to people depending on their contribution rather than natural forces. This reduces incidences of feeling of unjust treatment to hard working people in the society. It catalyses people to work hard to attain equal status like those making progress in the society instead of overdependence in relief. Although egalitarian principles look favorable, they have gotten several hindrances for progress in the society. They hinder people according themselves equal position to others for they have to wait until that position is awarded to them. This is why I support non egalitarian principle. It accords all people equal possibilities to attain what they wish with other people. Equality has a powerful influence on contemporary political thought as well as on contemporary moral. The equality of welfare is always desirable with all things considered. We are obligated to equalize welfare or else do something close to that. According to Egalitarian principle, equality of welfare contributes non-instrumentally to the value of the world to some extent. Work cited Parfil Derek. Equality and priority. Blackwell publishers Ltd. 1997, 202-214. Raz Joseph. The morality of freedom. The philosophical review. 1998, 98(2)254-257. Print Swift Adam. Political philosophy. A beginner’s guide for students. U.K. Cambridge publishers. 2006, 49-78. Read More