Freedom and Equality in Society Paper Example

Freedom and equality make up some significant factors of a healthy society in the contemporary world. Since the earliest human civilizations, justice and fairness have governed social living for all people. They are the factors that lead to equality of opportunity and have been subjects of major debates in the modern world. However, equality of opportunity is not always achieved. Human beings are competitive in nature and success in opportunity is defined by how well one is versed with structures and knowledge in the social fabric. The human rights and freedoms acknowledged in the constitution make up critical support structures for the undocumented equality principles that all societies ought to uphold. Equality of opportunity champions for a fair ground in savoring opportunities present in society. Atrocities such as slavery, tribalism, nepotism, corruption and all other sadistic antics erode the concept of equality of opportunity in society. This paper explores the concept of equality of opportunity in society by utilizing the hitherto knowledge on equality and commonly agreed on drivers of fairness and justice in extant civilized societies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Different political philosophers have explained the concept of equality differently. The most common are Mason, Campbell, and Frankel. Mason explained the difference between 'equality of access to an advantage and meritocratic equality (Mason, 2001, p 762). Frankel explored meritocratic equality further and separated it from educational equality of opportunity (Frankel, 1971, p 203). Campbell explored political and relative equities of opportunities (Campbell, 1974, p 60). The discussions above show the diversity of equality of opportunity and the complexity of its address. However, some ground factors dictate the level of egalitarianism in society. The factors include; equality of resources, equality of welfare, equal opportunity for welfare, individual capabilities among others.

This essay explores the role of equality of opportunity in the relations between people. It seeks to identify whether equality of opportunity plays critical roles in the same and identify the various dimensions that it may take. It also considers the sufficiency of equality of opportunity in enhancing relations of equality in societies of the modern world. To accomplish the aim, various philosophies will be explored and evaluated against commonly agreed principles which have been in the application in most societies and that most people identify with.

Equality of resources guides equality of opportunities and consequently the relations of people in matters of equality with one another. An individual has access to bodily and worldly resources. The bodily resources include talents and abilities while the worldly resources include natural materials and factors in society that apply to people as a unit. In his philosophy, Cohen argued that worldly resources are owned by all people, and no individual has a greater right than the others in savoring them (Cohen 1995, 71. He supported redistributive taxation on personal resources with an argument that property or wealth that a person has is attained from the utilization of both bodily and worldly resources. When a person utilizes bodily resources to make use of worldly resources, the earned property is as a result of the worldly resources, which by virtue of existence belong to every person. Therefore, Cohen concluded that taxation on any income generated by an individual is in line with the clause to respect human rights and freedoms since it takes a fraction of benefits accrued from collectively owned resources.

On the other hand, Arneson created a theory that opposed Cohen's philosophy. According to Arneson, rewarding people based on talents and abilities that occur naturally is against moral standards (Arneson 1999 p. 94). He acknowledged the fact that rewarding people based on talents level the playground and naturally selects people since every person has a unique capability. Arneson argued that rewards on talents would only be justified in a caste society that upheld ethnic divisions and ranked people based on race and other natural factors.

Bodily resources such as talents allow people to compete favorably since they are ingrained in a person since birth. However, the philosophies on the subject by Arneson and Cohen are insufficient in explaining their contribution to relations of equality among people. Some people are of the view that they enhance equality of opportunity while others deem them as drivers of social divisions and hindrances to achieving equality across all social structures.

Swift (2006) offered the most logical explanation to conceptions of opportunity equality based on resources. Swift's argument was that factors such as effort, talents, and abilities would be the determinants of one's suitability to a position such as a job post. 'Factors such as race, gender and religion would not be used to gauge a person's merit. Swift further proposed the conception that all people should have equal opportunities to acquire skills and competencies. The unequal talents among people make swift's radical conception illogical since people with different talents have different abilities to grasp knowledge and apply it in life (p. 99- 106).

Equality of welfare affects equality of opportunity and thus relations between individuals on matters of equality. Welfare is the satisfaction of one's preferences and tastes (Anderson, 1999, p. 254). Due to the freedom of choice in the contemporary world, humans have a great say in what they want albeit frustrations happen. Arneson's philosophy holds that to achieve equality in welfare, all people should have options whose arrays are similar to one another (Arneson p. 488). The only allowed disparities would be brought about by matters of personal talents, skills, and efforts. In other words, if all people in an equal society exerted equivalent efforts, the degrees of success achieved ought to be equivalent too.

Abidance to similar rules in society leads to equality of opportunity (Schaar 1964, p. 873). Schaar disregarded the contributions of physical and mental conditions to savoring of opportunities in society. An example that is in line with his philosophy is a footrace involving a renowned sprinter like Tyson Gay and other sprinters. Schaar's minimal view holds that if all the athletes start the race at the same starting point, then equality of opportunity is met since they all have equivalent distances to cover. The conventional view would hold that equality of opportunity in such a race would be achieved if all the sportsmen had access to equivalent training and their biological make-up was similar. All the ways of life of the athletes would have to be similar under the conventional conception. The radical view of Schaar's philosophy would hold that the bodily abilities of an athlete do not affect the race. Athletes with robust physical and biological activities would thus have to start the race after the others to account for their superior physical abilities. The philosophy by Schaar is insufficient in explaining equality of opportunity with regard to interpersonal relations.

Equality of opportunity is defined by the capabilities of individuals. Amartya Sen's philosophy of capabilities explores the diverse abilities of people. The philosophy is founded on five major components. First, the importance of freedoms in assessing the advantage that a person has over others. The philosophy agrees with Arneson's in acknowledging differences from one person to another. Second, the interpersonal differences in transforming resources into benefits. For instance, one person may be better than another in business may and even when given the same amount of capital, the better person may earn more profits. Based on the Sen's approach the difference is due to different capabilities. Third, the diverse nature of activities that causes happiness in an individual. Happiness or content from the achievement of preference may be more pronounced in one person than it is in another. Fourth, the balance between material and non-material factors of human nature. The material factors are physical while the immaterial are virtual and also contribute to welfare. Fifth, the mode of distribution of opportunities in society (Sen p. 490). Sen's philosophy sufficiently addresses equality of opportunities and individual relations of quality.

The balance on the formal rule can stand on the way when a particular goal and affect the savoring of opportunities (Goodin 2012 p 43). The focus on the irrelevancy of the official discriminatory rules unites formal equality and opportunity views. Examples of policies in this concept include job advertisement, which does not include people's races. If formal equality concepts are applied, the need for equality of opportunities can be satisfied (Segall, 2013). As long as no official stands in the way of anyone achieving a particular goal, the individuals have equal opportunities. Therefore, for the equality of opportunity to be achieved, the formal rule should be adjusted to have a provision that authorities must never stand in the way of the process.

On the other hand, a common paradigm is that equality of opportunity is defined by the balance in social welfare in a civilized society. Wellness focuses on the wellbeing on an individual life move based on equal protection, not minimum welfare (Segall, 2013). Every person's choice is a reasonable obstacle. Hence, for one to achieve a goal, he or she must make own voluntary decision to make something that they want. If an individual chooses to take a risk and pursue an opportunity, the society has no obligation on the equality of the endeavor since humans are competitive in nature and freedom allows personal pursuits. Goodin and Segall's philosophies do not sufficiently account for equality of opportunities with reference to relations of equality between people. however, the formal rule is bureaucratic and creates a hindrance particularly in corrupt systems where officials alter the feedback to their desire.

Conclusion

Equality of opportunity is entirely based on fairness and justice in society. The philosophies discussed above all aim at advancing the pool of knowledge regarding egalitarianism. The major systems such as the education system, the employment system, and the other social structures have critical roles to play in the issuance of opportunities. The opportunity disparity between social classes is further enhanced by differences in education systems, taxation mechanisms, and other institutional factors. All the philosophies agree that governments have critical roles to control their institutions and ensure that all people savor opportunities equally and the differences present are only due to interpersonal factors such as talents and abilities. Significant strides have been made in achieving equality. If the trend continues, the world will have equal growth across all social classes, and general harmony is bound to develop in the future.

References

Anderson, Elizabeth (1999) 'What is the point of equality?', Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 287- 337 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233897

Arneson, Richard 'Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare' Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 77-93 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4320032

Campbell, T. D., (1974). 'Equality of Opportunity'. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75.

Cohen, G. A. (1989) 'On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice', Ethics 99(4): 906-44, sections I-IV (i....