Against Equality

I justed posted this on the Practical Ethics Blog. Equality is an ideal born of the vice, or one of the seven deadly sins, of envy. It has no intrinsic value but panders to our vicious nature to be envious of others. Levelling down is absurd. And why level up if we can raise everyone, improving all of their lives instead of just some? To reduce people’s envy of others, when their own lives are good and better? That is no reason.

Imagine that in our society, people are divided into two groups. One group, Short, lives for a maximum of 60 years and another, Long, for 120, for inherent genetic reasons. We could achieve equality by levelling down, by shortening the lives of Long, so they live 60 years (perhaps by introducing painless toxins into their water). That would level down. It is absurd. It is absurd even if Short remain envious and jealous of Long.

A therapy becomes available which can prolong healthy life by 60 years. A more attractive version of egalitarianism is  levelling-up egalitarianism.  This would require giving the therapy to Short so that they can live 120 years, the same as Long. This would create equality and reduce envy and jealousy.

But why should we stop at levelling up. We could adopt a maximising consequentialist strategy and give the therapy to everyone, equally. Short would live 120 years and Long would live 180 years. Everyone would be better off but inequality would be preserved. But so what?

Why should we deny Long an extra 60 good years simply to reduce the envy and jealousy of Short, for no material benefit to them?

Equality has no intrinsic value. Our commitment should be to the lives of individual people not to human ideals like equality.

Equality is a dominant moral ideal in contemporary society. Egalitarianism is the stated principle for the NHS: equal treatment for equal need. Equality might be a good rule of thumb but it should not be a final regulative ideal.

[I wrote this blog in response to Alex Erler’s “Levelling Up”: In Defence of Equality]

Comments

[Metacognition]

Yeah, good outcomes rather than equity should be the goal. But since we are programmed to like equity (and thus global positive qualia attainment is on the line when going against it) for reasons which are at least somewhat valid, then on average we'll still have equity as a strategy to attain the ultimate goal. So like you said, it still remains a good rule of thumb.

[Joe Schocker]

You read read of Ayn Rand buddy. Egalitarianism does not work. Also, flouride opposes thyroid hormone and decreases testosterone levels. Do you want your male children to look like women?

[Richard Lennon]

The ethical concept of Equality is not based on envy. It has come to light as people reflected on injustices such as slavery. It is a discovery rather than an invention. Michelangelo would say that his statues where inside the block of marble when he started and he was just finding it with his chisel. Similarly equality was discovered as people looked at the way the world was run with minds that had traditional wisdom like "do unto others". It is equality of dignity and rights not of material goods. Problems arise in medicine though when material goods (eg advanced medical procedures) effect ones capacity to prolong life etc.

[Bruce Wilson]

Let's distinguish between two sorts of 'levelling'; reactive & proactive. (I don''t think they reduce to the levelling up/down distinction) The "I want what you've got" reactive form is the basis for social learning (not just theft), and without it we wouldn't be human. Perhaps elevating this to an ethical ideal is just an unfortunate by-product, or spandrel, of its obvious evolutionary advantages. It's simple-minded; I'll give you that. But the "You don't have what I have, so I'll help you" proactive form seems quite different (& is not just sharing). It too seems somewhat essential to being a complex social animal, and it too is the basis for ethical ideals, but it's not simple-minded. I can't agree that, considered in this way, equality has no intrinsic value - it's a process, not an outcome.

[Ricki]

Equality is not the same as opportunity. What people want is actually equal opportunity whilst inherently recognising they are different.