Part 1B - Political Philosophy - Equality - Lecture 1 ... · Part 1B Paper 7: Political Philosophy / Equality Lecture 1: Equality of What?! ChrisThompson [email protected]! 1

Part 1B Paper 7: Political Philosophy / Equality Lecture 1: Equality of What?

Chris Thompson [email protected]

1

Overview of the lectures

1.  Equality of what? – Welfare and resources 2.  Equality of what ? – Opportunity 3.  The value of equality 4.  Rawls 5.  Nozick 6.  IncenLves and efficiency and PosiLve

DiscriminaLon

2

Readings

•  *DWORKIN, R., ‘What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources', Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10(4): 283-‐345.

•  ARNESON, R., 'Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare', Philosophical Studies, 56 (1989): 77-‐93.

•  COHEN, G.A., 'On the Currency of Egalitarian JusLce', Ethics, 99 (1989): 906-‐44.

•  DWORKIN, R., 'What Is Equality?: Part 1: Equality of Welfare’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 10(3):

•  SEN, A., 'Equality of What?’ , Tanner Lectures on Human Values Vol.I (1980).

3

Summary

1.  The noLon of equality 2.  Equality of welfare 3.  Equality of resources

4

Summary


5

1. The noLon of equality

•  Just like liberty, freedom and democracy, (most) people are in favour of equality (of some sort).

•  Equality is a contested concept (cf. liberty). •  Equality is a relaLonal noLon – equality between whom?

•  Also need to specify what it is that we should equalise. Presumably we don’t care about equality between people in all things – then you get idenLty.

6


•  Equality has important poliLcal and moral connotaLons: –  JusLce as equality before the law –  JusLce as democraLc equality: ‘neutrality’, ‘anonymity’.

•  Equality also has important connotaLons for distribuLonal jusLce*. Here we are interested in economic and social equality.

•  ‘Why equality?’ – we will deal with this quesLon later.

* Although we could argue that poliLcal and legal ‘goods’ are distribuLonal in nature as well.

7


•  If we fix the ‘who’ quesLon to adult members of a given state, the ‘equality of what?’ quesLon has a number of possible answers: – Equality of welfare – Equality of resources – Equality of opportunity

•  For what goods, under what condiLons, is equality jusLfied? For what goods, under what condiLons, is inequality jusLfied?

8


•  What might jusLfy unequal treatment: – Property rights (Nozick) – Disability (Rawls) – Desert (Nozick) – Efficiency (Rawls)

•  Later lectures…

9

Summary


10

2. Equality of welfare

Beliefs + Desires = Decisions

Higher order desires

Lower order desires

Autonomy

Acts

Outcomes

Constraints Liberty

11


Beliefs + Desires = Decisions

Higher order desires

Lower order desires

Autonomy

Acts

Outcomes

Constraints Liberty

12


•  PosiLve freedom is about how many doors are open to you. •  NegaLve freedom is about whether they are locked. •  Both posiLve and negaLve freedom are about the acLons

you do/ can take. •  Your welfare is enhanced when you find what you want

behind the doors.

Metaphor of the doors

13


•  Welfare is the saLsfacLon of preferences. – When you get the state of the world that you want.

– When the outcomes are in line with your desires.

•  AlternaLvely, welfare is a hedonisLc state. •  If we are asking ‘equality of what?’, then surely welfare is the ‘what’ that we really care about.

14


1.  The problem of offensive tastes: – Suppose you have a preference for something other people find distasteful e.g. harming animals. Why should others help you saLsfy such preferences?

15


2. The problem of expensive tastes –  Suppose a father is wriLng a will and has three sons who may inherit his goods.

– Alan has culLvated a taste for expensive wine and caviar.

–  Brian is happy with beer and chips. –  Carl has a physical disability that affects his mobility. –  The father may be happy to give more money to Carl, so that Carl and Brian have equality of welfare.

–  But why should the father give more money to Alan rather than Brian?

16

Summary


17

Dworkin: a shipwreck and an island

•  Suppose a group of people are shipwrecked on an island with abundant resources.

•  The group agree that antecedently no one is enLtled to any parLcular piece of property.

•  Envy test – no division of resources is equal if any immigrant would prefer some other immigrant’s bundle of resources to his own.

•  A single agent would not be able to divide up the resources adequately: –  A milking cow cannot be divided –  Some combinaLons of goods in bundles suit some rather than others

18

3. Equality of resources

An aucLon

•  The soluLon is to have an aucLon. •  Everyone gets the same number of tokens (clam shells).

This serves as a metric for equality of resources. •  Every item (land, milking cows…) is put up for aucLon. •  Bidders can ask that any porLon of a good (e.g. a

subdivision of land) be placed separately on the aucLon. •  The lots are then sold to the highest bidder. •  The envy test will be met. No one would prefer to have

someone else’s bundle, because by hypothesis they had the opportunity to buy it.

•  No one will be unhappy with the make-‐up of their bundle, because they added items to it themselves.

19


Equality of resources vs. welfare

•  Someone can sLll think themselves unlucky: –  The island does not grow the fruits they like. – A lot of people share the same tastes and so the bidding is intense

•  But these concerns relate to equality of welfare. •  Under equality of resources people must make choices in light of scarcity.

•  It is OK if our choices impact on others (we outbid them); we are not acLng unjustly, since equality has already been established.

20


Inequality again…

•  Arer the aucLon has concluded, people can then get on with their lives, produce things, and trade.

•  The iniLal equal distribuLon of resources will quickly be disrupted: –  Some are more skilled producers than others. –  Some work harder than others. –  Some will get sick. Some will have their crops destroyed.

•  Before too long the envy test will no longer hold. As such, we no longer have equality of resources.

21


Luck

•  OpLon luck – the result of how deliberate choices pan out. E.g. Which crop to plant.

•  Brute luck – the result of risks that you do not deliberaLvely choose. E.g. The weather.

22


Luck

•  It seems fair to hold people responsible for opLon luck, but what about brute luck? If one farmer plants a crop that survives the storm, whereas another farmer’s crop is ruined, is the inequality in resources just?

23


Luck

•  It seems fair to hold people responsible for opLon luck, but what about brute luck? If one farmer plants a crop that survives the storm, whereas another farmer’s crop is ruined, is the inequality in resources just?

•  Insurance provides a link between opLon and brute luck. E.g. farmers have the opLon of purchasing insurance against adverse weather events.

•  We can suppose, for example, that sighted people can choose to purchase accident insurance during the iniLal aucLon. No need to redistribute.

24


DisabiliLes

•  But what about disabiliLes? You can’t buy insurance against pre-‐exisLng condiLons.

25


DisabiliLes

•  But what about disabiliLes? You can’t buy insurance against pre-‐exisLng condiLons.

•  HypotheLcal insurance market. Determine how much people would be prepared to pay for insurance against various condiLons. Fund the equivalent of this insurance via taxaLon.

26


A lack of talent

•  But what about those born with a lack of talent?

27


A lack of talent

•  But what about those born with a lack of talent? •  This is trickier. •  It is difficult to be precise about how much a lack of talent might be a disadvantage.

•  A hypotheLcal insurance market against the risk of not being a superstar would offer insurance that is bad value.

•  A hypotheLcal insurance market might produce good value products against being very disadvantaged. A minimum income guarantee?

28


Summary

•  So how does equality of resources (ala Dworkin) fare?

29


Summary

•  So how does equality of resources (ala Dworkin) fare?

•  The major problem with equality of welfare is people culLvaLng expensive tastes. – The aucLon holds people responsible for their preference formaLon.

– The hypotheLcal insurance markets place an upper limit on the amount of compensaLon due to people with disabiliLes or a lack of talent.

30


Next week…

•  Equality of opportunity

31

Part 1B - Political Philosophy - Equality - Lecture 1 ... · Part 1B Paper 7: Political Philosophy / Equality Lecture 1: Equality of What?! ChrisThompson [email protected]! 1

Documents