Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Equality in today's society
The importance of equality in society
Equality in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Equality in today's society
Each of us is inherently conditioned into a particular way of life by our community and the politics that govern such a society. At any current time, the organization of political principles, such as democracy or distributive justice, has been a predetermined result. We blindly accept that our ancestors were correct and ignore the possibility of objections. Yet, this is a grave mistake, especially considering the fact that our lives and the way society is organized are so intertwined. This means “we cannot avoid thinking of our political practices as alterable, and even (if only in retrospect) as possible objects of choice” (Bird 3). To some, one of the “alterable” political practices of distributive justice, in Socialist Equality of Opportunity (EOP), may seem extreme. The word Socialism has developed into a “meaningless word” that serves as a synonym to tyranny (Orwell 4). Yet, a specific form of socialism, equality of opportunity, has many merits over common, currently practiced systems and should be considered as a legitimate ideal for distributive justice. To realize the aforementioned thesis it is important to first define equality of opportunity. Within the definition, many reasonable objections will surface, but through disputing common theories on distributive justice, it will be relatively simple to recognize the following: EOP is the most rational form of distributive justice given the inherent nature of society, it eliminates a vast number of inherent inequalities, and is the most efficient form of distributive justice if equality of opportunity can be granted. The task then is to adequately define Socialist EOP. This in itself, like defining most distributive justice schemes, is a complex matter. However, it may he... ... middle of paper ... ...n my opinion, the nature of society includes a communal ideal that does not let those less fortunate suffer irrationally. Within Socialist EOP, the decisions of any individual remain intact so long as everyone starts out with the same chance for success. Although, what might come out of this is complexity, Socialist EOP fosters a true sense of justice and fairness by catering to the true sense of society. Economic efficiency shouldn’t matter, so long as the aforementioned ideals are held up by the state. The consequence will be a more just and perhaps a more efficient society. Compared to other polarized schemes, Socialist EOP truly represents the best chance at success, by eliminating a broad range of inequalities based on arbitrary factors, including luck. Only in eliminating all of these factors can a society, forged on a true sense of justice, be realized.
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
He affirms that the twentieth century ideas of socialism and that it cannot work because of history’s “proof” that people are selfish and governments abuse power. However, he declares that notion “is too simple.” Furthermore, he questions if common sense is from the “utopian dreams of the past,” then why can Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Johnson’s ideas be reevaluated for the present day. In fact, he affirms that the idea that markets safeguard the democracy and freedom that the citizens of the United States hold so dearly is more utopian than those aforementioned. Concluding, he reiterates that by ignoring “socialist” ideas, the established government is doing a great “disservice” to the United States.
...es. By adapting socialist ideals into a capitalist economic and social system a prosperous society results.
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
The fight for equality and human rights has been and still is a continuous battle played out on many fronts ranging from struggles between ruling governments and the people, the definition of societal roles and status, and also within the home on a domestic and individual level. The legacy for these battl...
In her 1990 book, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Iris Young draws attention to the fact that “contemporary philosophical theories of justice… tend to restrict the meaning of social justice to the morally proper distribution of benefits and burdens among society’s members. Young believes that this is too narrow a conception of justice, and proposes that those interested in truly understanding justice need to look beyond the distributive paradigm. Her critique goes right at the heart of liberal political theory, and as such has been the subject of intense scholarly discussion. In this paper, I will examine her criticisms of the distributive paradigm in order to determine which of them can be reconciled with conventional liberalism and which require a radical reconception of the bases of liberal moral theory.
William Morris described the system as a battleground, in that owners pushed their workers to new bounds to make the products required of them, to make a profit for the owner. Morris then goes on to say competition between nations, manufacturers, and individuals are immoral and there is a way to live in peace and harmony. The only way is through socialism. The principal idea of socialism is that people should have an even playing field, which would deter competition workforce. The socialist principal idea would have been improbable if not for the hardships many laborers faced because people’s lives were so miserable that someone concluded that a new form of government and dealing with the economy was needed.
Many theorists and philosophers have discussed these questions in-depth and much of the literature has been framed between a ‘statist and cosmopolitan’ approach. The cosmopolitan connotes as a belief in cosmopolis or a ‘world state’ and they believe that a single set of fundamental norms of justice applies to all citizens, regardless of nationality. (Heywood, 2012) Cosmopolitans usually determine that we should all be concerned about inequality, fairness...
Equal work, equal wages, equal food, equal opportunities, equal power. On the outside, a society where every one of its citizens was completely equal sounds and appears like a good thing, even a great thing. No one had too much power, everyone seemed to be happy, and most importantly everyone worked to better the community instead of themselves. This is what Socialism was portrayed as: a system in which everyone worked together to benefit the state. Contradicting this fabricated image, life under Socialism did not succeed in equality for men and women, and it caused people to do whatever necessary in order to gain some sense of individualism. While equality for all people in all aspects of life sounds appealing, it was an unachievable goal
During the Second Industrial Revolution two philosophies combated each other on a global scale. Laissez-Fair economics had ruled for the last few centuries and had created many prosperous nations but abuses of power by wealthy men had turned public opinion against it. Ever since its creation, Socialism begged to be placed head to head with Capitalism and it had finally gotten its chance. Laissez-Fair economics and Socialism both have their pros and cons when implemented in society. The battle between these two ideological works its way throughout society alternating between the protests and debates in the U.S. today to the great terror of the Cold War.
It is clear that Inequality of Opportunity and Inequality of Income intersect, but the main difference between these types of inequality can be explained as follows: Income Inequality depends on the efforts of a person, his or her work, while Inequality of Opportunity depends on external circumstances that a person can not influence (Molinas). At present, two approaches to Inequality of Opportunity are distinguished. One of them is called meritocratic and believes that people who make the same choice and apply the same effort should receive the same feedback (Molinas). The second one is called egalitarian, and its main idea is that outcomes should not depend on indicators and be equal (Molinas). Roemer actively developed this theory (Molinas). According to the scientist, there is no possibility to be sure that certain decisions made by a person were a consequence solely of her or his efforts, and not a consequence of errors and inequalities in the system. Following precisely this type of Inequality of Opportunity, one can expect that the respondents feel inequality in access and quality to education, the medical sphere, the labor market, living
Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
The societies of the modern day are shaped largely around the economic model or infrastructure that has been implement into the lives of citizens. These varying “economic models” alter the ways of domestic culture, and thus serve to be warranted much more attention and examination. Capitalism and Socialism are the two dominant ideologies that seem to invoke the opposite ends of the spectrum in the societal effect aspect. The far right capitalist, evoking a connotation of free business and anti-regulatory economic growth, comprised of a great deal of the Western world and provided a high risk-reward system that created a great number of wealthy elite and even more low-class blue collar workers. Conventional wisdom leads one to obviously find the opposing mindset with Socialism and its many degrees. The left wing socialist was characterized by a controlled economy and a strict government market. This system was heralded as system with no losers and social equality; thus, a gap-less population with a high standard of life. The course of this work will provide and explain the differences between Capitalism and Socialism; therefore, in the conclusion, the two societal roles will be defined. This will lead to a much more conclusive conclusion when examining, promoting, or denying either system.