Equality of opportunity: A Theory of Justice - Essay Example

Words (1655) Introduction Equality of opportunity provides individuals to compete against each other on equivalent terms to achieve their placein a social setup. Compared to caste system where the assumption is that society contains hierarchy, and superior and inferior status is determined by birth, equality of opportunity is a unique theory, which promises competition on equal terms. Discussion Rawlss in his book A Theory of Justice has constructed a hypothetical theory which is system based on equality that he calls “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls’s social theory discusses the role of institutions in a society, which aggravate bitterness creating isolation. He questions, is there any system to arrange society, which can keep these issues within tolerable limits? And can a social system be organized on just and fair standard that it becomes acceptable to the bulk of population. According to Rawls, we all agree to have a just social contract with our free will without knowing (ignorance) the ultimate consequences of our decision which he names as “original position”. According to the original position, "no-one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like" (Rawls, p 12). Thus behind this “veil of ignorance” different groups will hound their own benefits. Rawl’s explains that all the factions in this hypothetical society will adopt two basic principals: the principal of rights and duties, and the fair distribution of social and economic compensation in a society. The first principal is absolute “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (Rawls, p 60), which provides basic rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, and the right to owe property. The first principle is more or less absolute, and may not be violated, however it can be traded for obtaining other rights. According to the second principal “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971, pg. 303). Rawls principal 2(a) is different from the normal form of justice, however he substantiates on the ground of improving the fate of dis-advantaged people. As he explains that equality should not be enacted to deteriorate the condition of a person already in a worse situation. The 2(b) confers the distribution of offices and positions on merit basis, but all aspiring candidates should have the skills on which they will be assessed. Critics have come up with several arguments against Theory of Justice, such as Rawl’s idealism is meant to fulfill ethical ideals rather than real social dilemmas. Rawl mentioned that individuals cannot give up their basic liberties for economic or social benefit, however the ordering of the principles can still create greater inequalities, challenging the basic principals of justice and liberty. Many question the belief on equal opportunity, if those who have the required IQ and skills grab prized positions, the Individuals with severe mental or physical disabilities will eternally lag behind and will have no place in the such society. These individual with lower skills cannot compete with these intelligent individuals, applying the concept of equal opportunity on such individuals who do not meet the requirements of a competitive society is again a discrimination against the people with lower abilities. Liberalism has appeared countless times in history. According to the liberalism theory, state should not interfere in individual’s life and a person is free to choose the final good for his/her life as long as these aspirations do not conflict with state law. In plain words, the liberalism theory asks state to remain neutral in the citizen’s way of life and should treat citizens equal regardless of their national, tribal and economic backgrounds. The contemporary liberal vision is that state should be unprejudiced, life should be experienced in as many forms as many sub-cultures exists in a given society and state under no circumstances should force minorities to practice the popular good, rather the conflicting views should be accepted as an integral part of multi-culture co-existence. Kymlicka argues, that the best way to deal with multicultural societies is to establish minority group rights and special provisions for the deprived group, which will allow the creation of a just system. The reason for this special provision is that differences cannot be contained within the private sphere; the creation of special political institution will provide public acceptance for this endangered group and these liberal principles will keep a check on larger group to prevent any discrimination against the minorities. Kymlicka endorses a multicultural recognition of group rights to sustain the group difference as allowed by the liberal principles of freedom. However he disagrees about the confinement of individualistic liberty within a narrow framework, as this will not give any respect to the different cultures within a society. He in specific talks about the indigenous people rights against the majority culture; only this can assure “liberal principals”. He argues that “ liberal principles will preclude any attempts at ethnic cleansing, or stripping people of their citizenship, or the violation of human rights” in a majority culture, allowing all groups to respect right of minority nations within a larger nation setup. Failing to recognize indigenous people rights is not only a cultural discrimination, but it is against the very spirit of liberal and a democratic society values. He explains that giving such specific rights will not undermine the non-indigenous rights nor does it discriminate against the individual rights, he adds, “self-determination is an exclusively collective value”. Kymlicka stresses the importance of cultural context in making options available to people, and appeals to this as a basis for group-differentiated rights that will help sustain threatened minority cultures. Respecting the culture and norms of other culture is essential in multicultural society, however, is it really possible for a state to segment its society into bits and pieces of sub-cultures and let countless individuals tribes and clans decide for themselves? Will it not lead to chaos and confusion breaking the concept of state unity? Walzer encourages the idea that people have different possessions for different reasons, which are bargained within a society for other goods. This disparity in goods is essential to keep a society intact and its members reliant on each other. Some commodities are preferred over others, such as money, which is the principal commodity gives powers to those owe it, but still the owner needs other people to cater for their needs. In way people exchange goods for those, which they don’t have. According to Walzer all members of a society create their own social goods, which decide atypical standard of just allocation within a social setup. For example when it comes to money circulation, free market take care of it, for education and jobs related needs, issues are decided on the basis of merit, and in when it comes to citizenship, law decides equality. Walzer argues that justice means are accepted or common beliefs, which are accepted and shared by all members of society. As all the members of the society are dependent on each other for their mutual needs, this dependence of being complete on one side and being dependent on each other creates complex equality. He explains that complex equality is contrary to oppression, for the reason that it creates relationships between possessions and people. However Walzer’s a moral relativism goes too far to prove a theory, which is based on exploitation. The group, which has power, is made leader in the society and allowed to do what it feels good, rather accept the truth. According to this theory, good is fabrication of a people and is not based on some external truth, as a truth can change if people wish for it- is morally wrong, even if a larger majority accepts it. If we accept this view then the majority can enslave or abolish the rights of the minorities or implement draconian laws on the basis of gender, sex, race or religion on the reasons of being majority. There are some moral truths, which are universal and do not need any validation or external validity to prove it, such as enslaving or murdering another human being. Conclusion: Justice is the chief asset in any society to settle advantages and responsibilities between individuals. The distribution of justice needs an executing body to make and enforce laws and contracts, re-distribute wealth and tax, punish the evil and award the innocent. If this system is broken up and all individuals are allowed to do what they feel good, there will no common definition of good and society would be able to function. This individualzation will lead society to chaos and state in no time will fall apart. This whole justice process is very intricate, working in a complex social system and has no comparison with free market, healthcare system or individual right and wrong. The concept of ideal society has been alive in history, since the time of Plato, Moore and Marx. It is tempting to dream of a society where people do not suffer nor are they discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or ethnic backgrounds. Being human it is natural to have greed, bias, temptation and siding with our kith and kin, which is equally practiced in all small and large societies, all over the world. Equal opportunity is a controversial issue, which in reality only exists when people with similar backgrounds reach similar positions, with same amount of hardwork. In real world it is not possible to create such ideal form of equality for the reason, that inequalities are often passed from one generation to another in the shape of wealth and property, and continued to next generation is successive cycles. . Reference John A. Edgren. (1995). On the Relevance of John Rawlss Theory of Justice to Welfare Economics. Review of Social Economy, Vol. 53. Orend.B (2001). Walzers General Theory of Justice. Social Theory and Practice, Vol.27. Alfonso J. Damico. (1997),Whats Wrong with Liberal Perfectionism? Polity, Vol. 29. Mayer.R.(2002). A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation, Polity, Vol. 34. Read More