Schmidtz And Cohen's Argument Analysis

Schmidtz and Cohen stand at two almost diametrically opposed positions of equality. Schmidtz argues for an equality of treatment, while Cohen argues for an equality of opportunity. Schmidtz’s argument for equality of treatment implies that everyone should be treated the same, even if that treatment will result in others not being well off (Schmidtz 114). Cohen, on the other hand, argues that everyone should be treated the same in regards to improving society Cohen’s argument addresses three kinds of equality of opportunity and presents them in a favorable light. These forms of equality can be visualized on a spectrum, with each form of equality becoming more radical as Cohen progresses his argument.
Cohen’s first equality of opportunity, “bourgeois equality of opportunity” calls for the elimination of “socially constructed status restrictions, both formal and informal” (Cohen 15). In other words, bourgeois equality of opportunity seeks to remove barriers of entry against arbitrary factors that one may not be able to control. For example, racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace would not happen under bourgeois equality of opportunity. Bourgeois equality …show more content…
According to Cohen, this form of equality of opportunity attempts to remove barriers caused by “circumstances of birth and upbringing that constrain not by assigning an inferior status to their victims, but by nevertheless causing them to labor and live under substantial disadvantages (Cohen 16).” In other words, left-liberal attempts to remedy constraints inflicted upon someone who happens to make an unlucky roll in the dice of life. A real-world example of policy that falls under this category to some degree is the Tennessee Promise program. The Tennessee Promise program has allowed countless people a way to earn a post-secondary education in a world where many employers require some sort of education in that