4.

Equality
Equality (PYQ) [Link] 13 MB

4. Equality
1. Equality according to Ronald Dworkin in an eponymous book is "Sovereign Virtue". It hence
lies at the HEART of NORMATIVE POLITICAL THEORY.
2. Equality is sought and pursued before law, of opportunity and of outcomes (absolute
equality).
3. Isaiah Berlin therefore rightly says that even a cardinal value like Liberty, is hollow in the
absence of equality. Liberty therefore is based on Equality.
4. The Declaration on Principles of Equality 2008 accepts Equality as a key value building on
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
1. CONTESTED:
1. People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or
disparaging.: Dworkin
2. Tocqueville:
1. There is something irresistible and inevitable about spread and progress of equality in the
history of mankind. The Gradual progress of Equality is something fated.
Bankim's essay: Samya
Key examples:
Inequality root of mutiny, revolution, crime: Arab Spring, terrorism
Deprivation: Left Wing Extremism
Unequal political powers: Gorkhaland issues, regionalism
Caste Inequalities: blot on India
Constitutional Promise of Equality must be upheld

ARISTOTLE:
HISTORY OF EQUALITY:
He upheld natural inequality: Slavery, Citizenship
But made a case for reducing inequalities in many spheres especially where
Aristocratic strong hold existed like in Land ownership.
Analysis of 158 constitutions to conclude:Inequality at the root of all revolution.
Equality for Aristotle: only to citizens, not slaves
“Treat equals equally, unequal unequally.
 HOBBES:
Natural Equality exists in the State of Nature
Rousseau:
The only natural inequality that existed, existed in state of nature as difference in
physical strength.
But with modernity: laws, property-corrupted natural men and new forms of
inequality which is unjustifiable and unacceptable eventually created ground for
revolution
Marx:
Capitalism is an exploitative system, unequal
CRITIQUE OF GOTHA PROGRAMME: Socialist, Communist state- all inequalities
disappear
Tocqueville:
Equality makes democratic life possible
However, excessive equality may endanger liberty
Why pursue equality?
1. For fairness,example: satisfying basic needs of all
2. For Self respect: equality of status( example abolition of titles-Article 18)
3. As duty to show self respect to others( equal opportunity for self development)
4. To FosterFraternity (social equality)

THEORIES
Introduction:
OF EQUALITY: LIBERAL THEORY
Equality is a sovereign virtue according to Dworkin
The value/virtue of LIBERTY is HOLLOW without EQUALITY.
Equality ensures Dignity which is the basis of Justice
The theory is dynamic and therefore work in progress
What is liberal theory of Equality?
Is equality before law, of opportunity, of welfare, of resources and of capabilities?

1. It is a Utilitarian Idea
EQUALITY OF WELFARE:
2. IT argued that theproject and aim of distributional equality is the distribution of welfare.
3. There exists 2 understanding:
1. Classic: Jeremy Bentham who calls for preferring net pleasure over pain
2. Contemporary:satisfaction of desire and preference
4. Important idea is
1. not how much resources but level of satisfaction and happiness
5. It is imperative that welfare of all is ensured irrespective of inequality in material or other
distribution.
1. Example: car or bicycle may be fulfilling for two [Link] difference in
material, welfare is equal.
 Dworkin: two kids- simple living vs luxury; how justice achieved?
Problem?
1. It is morally worrisome and unsustainable
2. It does not promote fairness, self-respect or fraternity.
EQUALITY OF RESOURCES:

Led by Dworkin who criticised equality of welfare as illogical.

Dworkin called Equality as “Sovereign Virtue”
He calls for States to do Initial distribution of resources and ensure equal resources of all.
Dworkins’ equality of resources stakes a claim to being even moreambition sensitive and
endowment insensitive than Rawls
Unequal distribution of resources is considered fair only when it results from the decisions
and intentional actions of those concerned
Dworkin proposes a hypothetical auction in which everyone can accumulate bundles of
resources through equal means of payment.
In the end of such auction, non one is jealous of another's’ bundle and pass the envy test.
The auction procedure also offers a way to precisely measure equality of resources: the
measure of resources devoted to a person’s life is defined by the importance of resources to
others.
In the free market, how the distribution then develops depends on individuals’ ambitions:
AMBITION SENSITIVE
The inequalities which then emerge: OPTION LUCK in the realm of personal responsibility.
The BRUTE LUCK however should be compensated through aFICTIVE DIFFERENTIATED
INSURANCE SYSTEM: This is his way to balance redistribution with equality
He explains his theory through Political Fiction:
There once were shipwrecked immigrants on deserted island
Natural talent of people, abundant resources and no native population
Equality of resources was to be ensured
In a perfectly competitive market bidding was to take place
Each had 100 clamshells to buy what they sought
Division so effected by purchasing different but equal bundle of resources should
pass the Envy Test.
No division of resources said to be equal if on completion any immigrant prefers
another’s bundle of resources.
But in reality,
 People are not similarly endowed with identical natural assets or talents (ex physically
disabled)
Therefore a one time compensation from the common pool of resources before
auction toOFFSET AN INDIVIDUAL’S “BRUTE LUCK”. This is a moral requirement.
Inequality that then developed in market is OPTION LUCK
This plan is therefore
Ambition sensitive
Endowment insensitive
The insurance scheme or compensation: can take care of Natural, Underserved, Inequality
by putting aside 25-30 clamshells.
A rough parallel is: PROGRESSIVE TAXATION
RAWLS VS DWORKIN:
Rawls: Justice as Fairness, Dworkin: Equality of Resources
Dworkin develops Rawls’ idea of compensating and justifying inequalities and
disadvantages
Dworkin: brings forth measures of compensation
The key difference is that Dworkin does not support the idea of “Veil of Ignorance”:(do
not know any fact about themselves or others)(principles agreed in a state of ignorance is
problematic)
In Dworkin: thin veil of ignorance: know their talent; what they want: Competitive market bidding;
only ignorance: how much clamshells other willing to offer
DWORKIN vs SEN:
Dworkin proposes equality of resources to offset inequalities whereas for
Amartya Sen it is the equality of Capabilities (the end) that is paramount
Both are social liberals
Dworkin developed Rawls’ work, Sen was Rawls’ student and dedicated
“Justice______” to Rawls
For Sen Equality merely of resources is inadequate, equality of capabilities is important
Dworkin is concerned with the means to attain equality: resources
Sen is concerned with the end of all means: capability
Sen linked equality with justice and sought to minimize sufferings.
His focus is on well-being, has a "realizations based approach"
EQUALITY OF CAPABILITIES:
(Social Choice Approach, Realisation focused approach, functionalist approach)
Theories that focus on equal distribution of basic means focus only on means rather than the
end of what individuals gain.
Contrast to the resourcist approach, Amartya Sen proposes orienting distribution
around“CAPABILITIES TO ACHIEVE FUNCTIONING”
To evaluate the well being of individual, capability for achieving and maintaining various
“functionings” like nourishment, health, freedoms is key.
PROBLEM: a
ability to weigh capabilities to arrive at a metric for equality.
Various moral perspectives add to the ambiguity.
Martha Nussbaum counters it by linking capability approach to Aristotlean theory of the
good:
a theory meant to be open ended to leave place for individuality and cultural
variations
On the basis of this open endedness, various universal elements of a good life,
capabilities and functioning can be designated foundational.
She thus added a certain precision through an index of interpersonal comparison
Argues that state should make effort in ensuring equality of capability rather than
equality of income
Income is not the end but the means for an individual
It is capacity that can enhance the ability of individuals to convert income into
things that they value
The end of person is “a state of well-being”, their “FUNCTIONING”:THINGS LIKE
READING ARE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE VALUABLE TO LIFE.
State must therefore focus on ensuring the capability to read in people.
Distribution of equality focuses on equalizing capabilities. Focus on“real
freedoms” that people enjoy: health, self respect, political participation.
Resource must be a means of well being.
Well being understood a function
Therefore, focus of policy on Capabilities.
Example: illiteracy in district: deal with resource vs enhancing capability
 Novel approach: analysis of inequality complemented: FACTS OF HUMAN DIVERSITY,
INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS like abilities, talents, health etc. synthesised with
EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES like ownership of property, social respect, background
Example: Gender is an Internal fact which is worsened by the external phenomena of “Missing
Women”
It seeks to address the intersectionality
Significance of this approach:
Address specific deprivations
Ensure equality of capabilities
Lead to development: HDI
Social policy attuned to facts of human diversity
COMPLEX EQUALITY

Communitarian approach: Michael Walzer

Problem with other theories:
emphasis on single most important metric: resource/ welfare/capabilities
to PLURALITY OF DISTRIBUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
He argues that“we produce our social meanings” and therefore value different things
The need is therefore tos hift focus from distribution to the conception and creation fo Good
No single set of basic goods has universal value
He talks of“spheres of justice”
Same distributive principles cannot prevail in different spheres
Example:Market and Political life are different spheres
Can be different distribution principles even within same sphere in different sectors
“different goods ought to be distributed differently.”
Equality is not simple but complex.
Inequality in one sphere does not equal to or should not mean inequality in other spheres also.
He talks about “BLOCKING THE EXCHANGES”, example, if X is more powerful than Y in
political sphere, X is not unequal in general sphere unless X uses political power to take over
Y in all spheres of life
It is therefore important to block the exchanges
In formal terms complex equality would mean:
“ No citizens’ standing in one sphere or with regard to one social good can be
undercut by his standing in some other sphere with regard to some other good.”
Focus: social meanings of goods and the plurality of the spheres of justice
To put the issue another way: as Michael Walzer argues and the South African scholar Stuart
Woolman contends in the precise context of imposing egalitarian requirements upon groups, 89 a
regime of equality must ensure that ‘no citizen’s standing in one sphere or with regard to one social
good can be undercut by his standing in some other social sphere, with regard to some other
social good’. 90 In jurisdictions where religion plays a thin, i.e., relatively autonomous role, equality
has little to say to the relationships between members of a religious community, since there is little
chance of inegalitarianism within the community being translated into burdens in other spheres.
However, in the words of Anupama Rao, in a society where ‘ritual, economic and social domination’
91 were inextricably bound up with each other, and where ‘practices of … segregation [took place]
across sites of exclusion’, 92 Chief Justice Sinha’s important insight in Dawoodi Bohra was that
excommunication had impacts that went beyond the ‘essentially’ religious, and affected the
excommunicated individual’s access to basic public goods.

EQUALITY
liberty for pyke, death for minoes
AND FREEDOM:
reltnship important in normative political theory
"Child of Early liberalism"
LIBERTARIANS---CLASSIC--NEOLIB-ELITIST
equality took back seat
Tyranny of Majority
LOCKE
Any attempt to estb social and econo eq will reduce equ
HAYEK, FRIEDMAN---any mssive regultn brought by state will result into authorit
ELITIST-PARETO: only save liberty by elites
To retain political liberty, inewuality is natural and will be the basis.
2 core concepts, contested
Equality is Sovereign Virtue: Dworkin
Isaiah Berlin: Liberalism is hollow without Equality
Classical Liberal and Libertarian, Neo-Liberal:
Negativeliberty: non interference of state in Individuals’ lives, limit authoritarianism.
Nozick (explain)
Equality: equality of opportunity, equality before law
Marxist:
Freedom, not liberty. Liberty is for the bourgeoisie, false consciousness; liberty is
libertarian conc
Lib and eq are complementary not antithetical
Real liberty is freedom, and freedom from necessities, only possible in a
classless society----MARX
 In practice compromise of liberty
Equality: “Critique of Gotha Programme” to each according to need, from each
according to capacity
Social Liberals
Established equilibrium between liberty and equality, human dignity acted as the
bridge.
Rawls: 3 principles: beautiful synthesis
Even DWORKIN, tried to synthesise the two.
Indian constitution also
Liberty---Equality of opportunity-----difference principle
Ambedkar's Golden triad- equality, liberty, fraternity
Socialism compromises liberty in the quest of equality
Liberalism compromises socio-economic equality
Therefore, Rawls brings idea of Democratic Equality
Dworkin builds on it:
Ambition sensitivity
Endowment insensitive action
Amartya Sen furthers the idea “development as freedom”
Democracy and Development (liberty and equality for Sen are interdependent.
MILL AND LASKI: certain measure of social
An interest of liberty begins only when men have ceased to be overwhelmed by day to
day problems.
Lib and eq are complementary
EQUALITY AND JUSTICE:
Equality in its prescriptive usage has a close connection with morality and justice in general
and distributive justice in particular.
From antiquity, equality has been considered a constitutive feature of justice
Throughout history, people and emancipatory movements use the language of justice to
pillory certain inequalityes.
Justice is constitutive of equality.
FORMAL EQUALITY: when two persons have equal status in at least one normatively
relevant respect, they must be treated equally with regard to this respect.---------Aristotle
in Nichomachean Ethics: treat like cases alike
PROPORTIONAL EQUALITY: Aristotle
Moral equality:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
 Ambedkar Rawls

1. Affirmative Action according to Ashok Acharya refers to those preferential policies of the
state which seek to address structural inequalities and historical injustices of the state.
1. eg: reservation policies/quota system in India is one of its strongest manifestations
2. Unlike negative liberty, it is a form of positive liberty seeking to empower individuals and
provide for a WELFARE STATE.
Logic of Affirmative action/ Advantages
1. Level playing field: bring at par those who have suffered historical injustices
1. eg Blacks in USA, Dalits in India
2. Employment and livelihood
3. Dignity and opportunities
4. Realising the DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE of RAWLS (A theory of Justice, 1971)
5. Enabler of equality of resources (Dworkin, Rawls) and ultimately CAPABILITIES (Sen and
Nussbaum)
6. Amartya Sen (functioning and capabilities)
7. Create Welfare State
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN INDIA:
Colonial policy basis:
Balance between competing communities or interests
Divide nationalist front, create differences
Constitutional Scheme
Social Justice
Need: balance Substantive and Formal Equality
Formal: equal protection of law
Substantive: recognize needs of the disadvantaged
Commitment to equal rightsof individual and addressing group discrimination ran parallel in
Indian Plan
Provisions:
15(4): nothing about prohibition of discrimination to prevent state in making special
provisions to the advantage of SC, ST, backward classes
15(6):
 16(4): nothing about 16, in Public employment prevent reservations
16(6)
Article 46: promotion of educational and economic interests of SCs, STs and other
weaker sections
Article 330: Reservation of seats SC, ST in LS
Article 332: Reservation of seats: SC, ST in L.A.s
Broadly 3 types of preferences sanctioned in Constitution:
Reservations
1. Special representation rights-- SC, ST, legislatures, Article 330, 332
2. Quotas in government jobs, education
1. Preferences to targeted groups
1. women, SC, ST (Article----
2. in services, schemes, health, loans, scholarships
1. eg: NFSA--1600 take home calories for women
2. SC, ST- Scholarship scheme
3. Ayushman bharat for poorer section identified by SECC Census
3. Special protection to safeguard against exploitation
1. prohibition of forced labour, child labour etc.
Form of COMPENSATORY JUSTICE, Constitutionally guaranteed
1. Ram Singh Case (Jat): SC Directed Govt to Identify new Vulnerable Groups Like Transgenders
2. SC Suggested to Bring Creamy Layer Concept in SC
3. Ashok Kumar Thakur Case: Reservation Policies are Enabling Policies
4. Should Bring People Towards Same Level and than Stop
5. For Historical Reasons (RC Guha: Debate on Reserva8on Generate More Heat than Light)
6. Pratap Bhanu Mehta
7. Reservation Policy Makes us Immoral
8. Our Opinions in Public are Different from that in Private
9. It is Different from Preferential Policy ( Giving Reservation to Dominant Communities Like Jats
in Haryana,
Marathas in Maharashtra)
Limits of Affirmative action:
1. MORAL APPEAL OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR SOME: REVERSE DISCRIMINATION, REDUCE IT TO
A PROCEDURAL IDEA
2. Compromises merit
3. Objection to social costs of policy (caste consciousness, stigma, differences)
4. Disadvantaged groups heterogeneous, not homogeneous
5. POLITICS OVERTAKES PHILOSOPHY, difficult to roll back
6. Failure in achieving objectives, misuse, poor implementation(OXFAM REPORT: 1 in 4 Indians
faced caste, religion bias in health services)
Affirmative action vs. Preferential Policies:
Preferential policies wider ambit: fairness or political accommodation. Example: when satisfying
dominant ethnic majority or minority, Sinhalese, Marathas, Whites in South Africa
“With all costs and imperfections it would be imprudent to abandon the imperative of distributive
justice”
“Jettisoning Affirmative Action is equivalent to turning blind eye to the cause of social justice”
U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson:
“You do not take a person hobbled by chains for years and liberate him- bring him to the starting
line of race and say: You are free to compete with all others and believe you have been fair. It is not
ENOUGH JUST TO OPEN THE GATES OF OPPORTUNITY. ALL OUR CITIZENS MUST HAVE THE
ABILITY TO WALK THROUGH THOSE GATES.”

Equality
Core Issue ( Equality in what Sense?)
U%litarian: Give all Which Provides Equal Pleasure
Equality in Terms of Welfare (Pleasure)
not Suitable (Dworkin): Capitalist Will Get More than Worker
Egalitarian Theory of Equality (Dworkin)
Book- Sovereign Virtue
Equality of Resources-Dworkin (Cri%c of Nozick Who Gave En%tlement Theory, Follower of Rawls)
Just, Ini9al Distribu9on
People should be Held Responsible For the Choices they make but only the Choices they Have
Made in Chosen Circumstances
Compensate only Once, not Again and Again
1. 1.
Cultural Rela9vists Perspec9ve of Rights as Against Universalists
2.
Page 48 of 65
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1.
2. 5.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2. 1.
1. 2.
3. 4.
2.
Envy Test (to Iden%fy Just Distribu%on): in new Society, Give Everyone Equal but Give Disabled
More Ini%ally (Just Ini%al Distribu%on)
3. Luck 1.
2. 1.
4. 1.
1. 1.
1.
2. 2.
3.
Brute Luck: Man Has no Choice (Endowment Sensi9ve)
Op9on Luck; Man Has Choice
when Man Go For Ambi9on Sensi9ve, Don't Compensate For Loss
He Suggests Auc9on- Give Equitable Ini9al Amount
Ambi9on Sensi9ve Auc9on
Done Ater Just Ini9al Distribu9on
what they Want
Endowment Sensi9ve: See Natural Capacity
People's Choice Will be Seen by the Amount they Can Spend For Par9cular Value
Amartya Sen: Equality of Capability (even when Equal Resources, Provide Capability For More
Equality)
Func9onal Approach
Social Choice Approach (Mul9-Dimens9onal View, not Just Economic)
Takes Into Account Different Issues- Society, Religion, Gender, Etc
Realisa9on Focus Approach- Person should Realise Importance, Get Respect from Others
Looks At Person as End of Economic Growth, not Means
Development is => Freedom is Explained => Terms of Capability
Affirma%ve Ac%on
Posi9ve Interven9on by State (Reserva9on)
For Community as Whole, not For Individuals
SC on Reserva9on
Ram Singh Case (Jat): SC Directed Govt to Iden9fy new Vulnerable Groups Like Transgenders
SC Suggested to Bring Creamy Layer Concept in SC
Ashok Kumar Thakur Case: Reserva9on Policies are Enabling Policies
Should Bring People Towards Same Level and than Stop
For Historical Reasons (RC Guha: Debate on Reserva8on Generate More Heat than Light)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Reserva9on Policy Makes us Immoral
Our Opinions in Public are Different from that in Private
It is Different from Preferen9al Policy ( Giving Reserva9on to Dominant Communi9es Like Jats in
Haryana,
Marathas in Maharashtra)
Communitarian View
Michael Walzer[Spheres of Jus9ce]: Complex Equality
Complex Equality
Indian Poli%cal Thought
Equality in Complex Phenomena
Blocking Exchanges; when Advantage in One Field, should not Use It in Other Field
[Link] 158 B