Liberty And Equality

Improved Essays
Liberty and equality are two of the most important principles in politics, as they are part of the foundation of our society. Equality and freedom have generally been portrayed as two conflicting concepts, mainly because in order to achieve equality redistribution of resources is necessary and this would inevitably interfere with the liberty of those who have an abundance of resources and wealth. However, after a closer examination we can see that in many cases an increase in equality results in an increase in freedom as well. The negative and positive explanations of freedom imply that inequality can actually be a restraint of freedom because it limits one 's autonomy. In addition, the distinction between individual and social liberty can …show more content…
The word equality possesses more than one meaning and some of the discussions and controversies around it arise mainly because the term is used with different connotations. According to Williams, all people are human beings and equal in that they belong to the species of homo sapiens, can speak a language, live in societies, use tools and so on. This serves as a reminder that people are also alike in other aspects that are more likely to be forgotten, like the ability to feel pain or affection for others. However, in some societies these characteristics are neglected in the case of some, treating them as though they do not possess these characteristics and neglect the moral claims that arise from them. Tawney, on the other hand, also emphasizes the importance of economic equality. In his view a community requires a common culture, which must rest upon practical foundations of social organization. Sharp contrasts between the economic standards and educational opportunities of different classes lead to resentment, on one hand ,and arrogance, on the other, rather than to a common culture. Therefore, a community requires a large measure of economic equality. This does not refer to an identical income but to equality of environment, access to education and the means of civilization, security and …show more content…
They argue in favour of the right to life and the right to property. However, in the libertarian view the right to life does not refer to a right to receive goods and resources from others in order to preserve one 's live, but simply the right not to have one 's live interfered with or ended by other individual. The same applies to the libertarian 's right to property. It is the right not to be interfered with regarding goods and resources acquired legitimately, and not the right to receive goods and resources necessary for one 's welfare. Therefore, in a condition of economic inequality, where the rich have more than enough to satisfy their basic needs and the poor lack the resources necessary to meet their basic needs, libertarians argue that the rich have the liberty to use their resources to satisfy their luxury needs, with the consequence that the basic needs of the poor will not be met. They believe that in this case the liberty of the poor is not at stake and so the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty. When the conflict between the rich and the poor is viewed as a conflict of liberties, we must determine which liberty is morally enforceable, that of the poor or that of the rich. The “ought” implies “can” principle claims that the liberty of the poor, which is the liberty not to be

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    However, taking wealth away from people only benefits the less fortunate. As both philosophers point out, justice is the most important political value and applies to the basic institutions of society such as institutions that regulate the market, property, family, freedom, and so on. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals for mutual advantage, the conditions for this cooperation need to be defended and any inequalities in social positions must be…

    • 1985 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    The theory of justice purposed by Rawls may be mainly egalitarian, however, it allows for inequalities which he views as essential to promote the advancement of economically productive capabilities. These purposed inequalities are consistent with justice since they fulfill the difference principle, by maximally advancing the position of the worst off group within society (Rawls, 1971). These inequalities can only be essential and justified if the group of talented people are incapable of developing their skills without them. An example of this would be those people who experience stressful education need more expensive forms of leisure in order to be competent of completing such task. Cohen indicates that it's the talented group themselves that make these inequalities possible, therefore it is necessary to give them these incentives or they could protest to increase their economic productivity without them.…

    • 1483 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Nonetheless, this puts those who are physically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged in a detrimental position because all the wealth would accumulate in the upper half of the society. To counteract natural phenomenon of varying advantages, Rawls presents compensatory principles that buffers the injustice that can occur. There are two overarching principles of justice that are to be chosen by a free society. The first principle is that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with…(those of) others” (Rawls 53). The basic liberties are those that ensure that every person, even the individuals at the lowest point in society holds rights and have some opportunity of move up or down in the social hierarchy..…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Rawls in his “A Theory of Justice” tries to identify an alternative viable theory of social justice to other predominant doctrines, which have dominated our philosophical tradition. While the author acknowledges that most citizens and institutions recognise the principle of social justice, he also underlines that their conceptions on the distribution of basic rights and duties are influenced by their interests and hence, are not always to the advantage of all citizens. In fact, Rawls argues that the prevailing Utilitarian and Intuitive theories work on the principle of maximum benefits for the greatest amount of people, or, the assumption that human beings born into different positions have different expectations of life. These two…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The elite leaders are also weak humans and they are susceptible to these temptations as their political positions bring them more power and wealth. They would exploit their power hierarchy to enhance their arbitrary power and authority over the citizens by endorsing laws and decisions that could damage peace and harmony and the wellbeing of the…

    • 1789 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Perhaps capitalism is a moral system based on the pursuit property, but even using an antiquated Lockean framework it is still unjust. Capitalism does not allow fully for the pursuit of liberty or the pursuit of life and it does not fully allow for pursuit of…

    • 1004 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It talks about the conditions we need to flourish as human beings, in psychological and social aspects: the feeling of belonging in the community, of being useful to society, of safety, relationships, main survival needs fulfilled, and so on. It says is not the end of capitalism, is not an invitation to revolution, but to use our already built institutions to broaden our view of what is really important that more liberal societies turn into more loneliness and unhappiness than more articulated markets where there is still a bigger sense of community. To shorten things in one sentence, the reflection of shouldn’t the economy work in favor of humanity and not the other way around? The most interesting point, environmentally speaking, is a fact that building a greener economy requires allocation of investments, efforts and human capacity that could help in the recovery of the economy T. J. (2009, October…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The speaker of the source would also be opposed to socialist values interfering with the economy and private property by taxing the rich to provide for the poor, in addition to providing any sort of social program to help those who can’t help themselves. Unrestrained capitalism, as the source advocates, should not be embraced by society. In fact, the economy should have enough government intervention that while wide-spread success is achieved, independence and innovation are not sacrificed in the process. This idea can be supported through many examples and case studies. Three ideas , however, accurately sum up the benefits of having intervention in the economy: some closure of the gap between societal income classes, innovation is still accomplished, and, most of all, the people who participate in a government regulated system will experience a widespread area of prosperity in not only the economy, but in their everyday lives as…

    • 1659 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Basically, the rich people want to keep getting richer which causes the poor to get poorer. Similar steps to reducing greed should be taken to reduce competitiveness- rich people have to realize that money doesn’t always equate to happiness and that their selfish attitudes are causing economic inequality to be present. Having rich people that are…

    • 1864 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper, I present Jan Narvesonʻs argument that no one should be morally required to assist those who are impoverished or starving. I will then object to this statement by arguing that those who are financially secure who are able to maintain comfortable lifestyles are morally obligated to distribute a portion of their wealth or excess food and supplies to those in need. My objection consists of two main arguments, the first being that those who are financially secure may be responsible for the impoverishment of others as a result of their consumption habits. The second component of my objection is that people should be morally obligated to distribute any excess money, food, or supplies they feel that they are able to because it would…

    • 2077 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays