What Is In Defense Of Equality

An argument I found problematic is that of Walzer’s in his work titled “In Defense of Equality.” He believes that redistribution undermines achievement and ability and distribution should be based on intrinsic value. As stated, “The difficulty here is that making money is only rarely a form of self-expression, and the money we make is rarely enjoyed for its intrinsic qualities. In a capitalist world, money is the universal medium of exchange” (Walzer 400). Furthermore, talent is distributed unevenly and that results in some getting better than others. In Rawls’ hypothetical this is okay, just as long as the inequalities are to everyone’s advantage. Talents allow some to succeed more than others and the society made in the original position
Wilkinson believes that society should not be worried about distribution but rather be worried about the standard of living and quality of life (Wilkinson). He reiterates how inequality is symptom but not a disease and Rawls’ offers a way to fix that with his original position theory. For example, where a person lives determines their quality of education—that is unjust. Thereby creating a society in which that scenario does not exist diminishes that unjustness. The problem here is not inequality, Wilkinson would believe, and distribution of income does not solve this problem. He offers insight by pointing out “If income inequality in the United States is symptomatic of injustice, the problem is unlikely to be the level of inequality as such, but the institutional mechanisms or social norms—such as predation by political elites or the systematic exclusion of ethnic minorities from economic opportunities—that tend to generate income inequality” (Wilkinson 11). By changing “the institutional mechanisms or social norms” behind the veil of ignorance creates a clear premises for avoiding the inequalities that sprout from them because the unknowing chooser has created a social structure in which any position is attainable, even the least desirable one. Rawls’ overall goal is to promote the idea that inequalities in society should be to everyone’s advantage
He presents the idea of creating a society in which any position in the social structure is just as in if an individual creates a society in which they would not be one of the positions—it is therefore unjust. By creating the hypothetical of the original position and by factoring what one chooses in the original decision is what is just is making a society in which any sort of inequality is to everyone’s advantage. Since it is to be behind the veil of ignorance, the unknowing chooser does not know what their position would be therefore validating the justness of each position. I am amendable to this theory because, in this argument, there cannot be any sort of systematic exclusion and equality is not necessarily violating freedom. Equal distribution of resources, in my opinion and in Rawls’ reasoning, is just and minimal government interference can be dangerous. Nozick promotes the idea that citizens do not have any moral obligations to one another, but, for a society to work efficiently, everyone must work together and Rawls’ hypothetical sets up a society in which everyone benefits. He addresses that, “There exists a marked disparity between the upper and lower classes in both means of life and the rights and privileges of organizational authority. The culture of the poorer strata is impoverished while that of the governing and