On The Justification, Criticism And Rebuttals Of Value Of Equality

The theme of this paper is to explore the controversy which relates to the value ofequality. Equality and the value of equality are very close concepts. This paper arguesthat the value of equality means that wether equality is good, and how equality is good.Therefore, from the point of view of value theory, we discuss equality in politicalphilosophy. First, from the consideration of two distinction of goodness, Equality can bedivided into three pieces: there are equality as instrumental value, equality as intrinsicvalue, and equality as extrinsic value. equality as instrumental value means we persueequality for some other goods. equality as intrinsic value,means we persue equality forequality itself, not for other goods. equality as extrinsic value means we persue equalitypartly for other good, partly for equality itself, or for equality itself in some coditions.This paper argues that such justification of equality need to address a lot of criticism.This paper choose three kinds of criticism to equality, there are criticism of Nozick,criticism of priority theory, and criticism of sufficiency theory. criticism of Nozick is asystematic criticism.He argues that equality is an unproven principle, it is a jealousypolitics.Equality is a patterned principle, it is easily disrupted by voluntary exchangeand gifts. Unless we forbiden the voluntary exchange and gifts, in other words, violatethe basic rights of person, the Egalitarianism can not solve this problem. And hisconcept of self-ownership proved this point. The egalitarians think Nozick’s theory isalso lack of justification. And the property rights is not too strict to violate any tax forredistribution. And Nozick’s concept of self-ownership can not support his concept of property rights.Criticism of Priority theory based on Parfit’s classification of egalitarianism. In hisopinion, egalitarianism can be divided into two kinds: teleological egalitarianism anddeontological egalitarianism. Parfitt believe teleological egalitarianism facing thelevelling down objection. According to person-affecting principle, we must abandonteleological egalitarianism.Although deontological egalitarian able to overcomelevelling down objection, but it does not explain the "divided world" example. So it isnot a ideal principle. Parfit think his priority view can explain why do we favorate theworst off. And the priority view can avoid the levelling down objection and the dividedworld objection. And Negal’s justification of acceptence can support priority view.But egalitarians believe there can not be distincted between the priority view andthe egalitarianism. Because each priority view can be found a corresponding theory ofequality.and in fact, priority view itself facing the levelling down objection.Sufficiency theory believe the most important thing is everyone gets enough, not getsthe same. The sufficientarianism believe that the importance of welfare threshold. Whenperson reach the welfare threshold,we can say he gets enough. And the redistributionabove welfare threshold is not important. Egalitarian draws person’s attention to therelative standard of welfare is not appropriate. The important thing is absolute standardof person’s welfare. Equality is an unproven principle and lead to CatastrophicConsequences. Egalitarian think the relative standard of welfare is important. Disastrousdistributional consequences are not required by egalitarianism at all. And the principleof sufficiency can not set a reasonable threshold for the welfare, which makes peoplesuspect the appeal of the principle of sufficiency.Based on the analysis above, the ideal justification of equality must respond to twodifferent criticisms: the levelling down objection, and the empty idea objection.Defenders of the egalitarianism carried out a lot of refute. The egalitarian think equalityhas a unique normative content, equality is not an empty idea. Egalitarianism have theirown independent views on which aspect is moral relevance, and which is moral Irrelevance. According to the distinction between comparative justice andnon-comparative justice, equality is a principle of comparative justice. Facing thelevelling down objection, Egalitarian has two kinds of response. One is recognized thatthe attractiveness of the levelling down objection, and revise the Egalitarianism. Theother is insisted on equality have plenty of reasons to support the levelling down.We can make a description of equality in three levels: in the context of comparativejustice, equality has a strong appeal as a principle of distribution. It can overcome alotof criticisms. And clarify the normative content of the principle of equality. Make surethe value of equality will not equivalent to entitlement theory and deserve principle.Secondly, when we distribute some Substantial goods, we can insist that the conditionalegalitarianism. we can insist that the equal distribution of Pareto optimal is the bestdistribution. Although in this contidtion, the principle of equality always Beoverwhelmed by principle of welfare. Third, the moral equality sometimes able tosupport value of equality, but this is not a solid support. It will also allow a lot ofnon-egalitarianism principles. In this paper, it is reasonable to believe the assumption ofequality. After the visits equality as a universal emtitlement theory or deserved theory,we believe that some principles supported by moral equality indeed are principles ofequality, and can not be equated to deserve theory or emtitlement theory. Such as, theequality of political symbolism.