Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Two central values in American political life are liberty and equality, and the question
is, how do those things go together? Can you have liberty and equality at the same time?
Usually the question is put this way. If we want to achieve equality, are we going to
have to impinge on liberty? Well the answer to that depends in part on the definition
of those terms.
There’s more than one way to think about liberty. There’s more than one way to think
about equality. But let’s focus on equality for a second. There are at least two central
different conceptions of equality. One we might call formal equality, so called because
it has to do with the form of the institutions. Formal equality is something like equality
before the law. You and I are equal before the law if the law takes no notice of what
kind of person I am or what kind of person you are or what kind of person anyone else
is. If there’s a law against ***, then it doesn’t matter who the person is who
committed the ***, it’s still wrong. That’s equality before the law. That kind
of equality is perfectly compatible with classical liberalism and indeed is part of the classical
liberal scheme of values.
But there’s a second kind of equality, what we might think of as material or substantive
equality. That’s much different. So that notion of equality holds that people ought
to be equal in material respects, maybe in wealth, maybe in resources, maybe various
other ways that we can actually measure. That kind of equality does pose significant challenges
to classical liberalism, and I think it has challenges of its own.
There are at least three central problems or challenges with trying to have a society
based on substantial equality. The first one is, it might well be impossible. So think
for a second, how would we measure that? What kinds of things exactly are we going to try
to make equal? Are we going to try to make wealth equal, self respect equal, happiness
equal? Wealth doesn’t mean the same thing to everybody, and for many people—if you
just take that one, wealth—for many people wealth is not the most important thing in
the world. So wealth will enable some people to get what they want, and other people it
won’t enable them to get what they want. So what kinds of things actually are we going
to try to make equal?
So first of all there’s this issue of measuring it, but second of all there’s this issue,
even if we could measure it and suppose we want everybody to be equally happy. Okay,
if we could get past the problem of measurement, how on earth are we going to establish that?
How are we going to actually make people equally happy? So there’s the issue of potential
impossibility.
The second issue is it conflicts, I think, with human diversity. Human beings are different.
That’s one of the great things about human beings. They have different talents; they
have different interests; they have different schedules and values. Those differences get
reflected in a free society by a great flourishing of all sorts of things, lots of different
goods and services and plays and musicals and all the different kinds of activities
that people engage in. If we were going to try and enforce a kind of material equality
we’re going to have to substantially limit that diversity. Trying to enforce a material
equality is going to interfere to a great extent with human diversity and human individuality.
And that leads to, I think, the third and most important problem facing the attempt
to create a society based on material equality, and that is that it conflicts with human dignity.
What I mean by that is, part of what it means to be a dignified human being, to have human
dignity, is to have the capacity and the freedom to choose, to make choices. Those choices
are reflected in and actually issue in all sorts of different things that we choose to
do. We choose different ways of life. We have different schedules of values. Those schedules
of values, those different schedules of values, the things we choose, those are effects of
our free choice. And respecting those free choices in other people is respecting their
dignity. So the attempt to enforce material equality will end up requiring us to limit
human diversity. That’s really its fatal flaw, because human diversity is not something
to be complained about. It’s not something to be regretted. It’s something to be celebrated.