POLITICAL THEORY: Concepts and Debates

ASSIGNMENT

1. EQUALITY: Paula Casal and Andrew Williams

SUMMARY

Equality and Justice: A Philosophical Examination of Contemporary Debates

The concept of equality has been a fundamental concern in political philosophy, shaping
discussions on justice, fairness, and the responsibilities of individuals within society. In their
chapter "Equality," Paula Casal and Andrew Williams provide an insightful analysis of the
ongoing debates on economic and social equality, examining theories advanced by prominent
philosophers like John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. By exploring key theories such as Rawls’
"justice as fairness" and Dworkin’s "equality of resources," Casal and Williams present a
comprehensive framework for understanding how equality can inform the design of social
and economic institutions, the allocation of resources, and the distribution of responsibilities.

Justice as Fairness: Rawls’ Egalitarian Framework

John Rawls’ theory of "justice as fairness" serves as a foundational perspective in
contemporary egalitarian thought. In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls proposes two
principles to establish a fair and just society. First, each individual should have an equal right
to the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others.
Second, social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they meet two criteria: they
must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, and they must be
attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Central to Rawls' theory is the difference principle, which justifies certain inequalities if they
serve to improve the position of those who are least advantaged. For example, while
disparities in income and wealth might incentivize productivity, such inequalities are just
only if they ultimately benefit the most vulnerable in society. This principle acknowledges
the diversity of talents and ambitions among individuals but insists that social institutions
should mitigate inequalities that arise from arbitrary factors like family background or natural
endowment. Rawls’ framework thus aims to balance fairness with practical considerations,
allowing for economic differences while ensuring that such disparities do not undermine the
integrity of democratic institutions or the equality of political influence.

Equality of Resources: Dworkin’s Market-Based Approach

Ronald Dworkin offers an alternative conception of equality, emphasizing the distribution of
resources rather than welfare. In Sovereign Virtue (2000), Dworkin argues that a just society
should not merely aim to equalize outcomes but should instead provide individuals with
equal resources, allowing them to pursue their personal goals and make decisions freely. To
illustrate, Dworkin presents a thought experiment involving shipwreck survivors who must
fairly divide resources on a deserted island. Each individual is given equal purchasing power
in an auction to ensure that no one envies another's share of resources.
Dworkin introduces a key distinction between "brute luck" and "option luck." Brute luck
refers to factors beyond individual control, such as natural abilities or disabilities, while
option luck pertains to risks taken by choice, such as engaging in a business venture.
Dworkin asserts that inequalities resulting from brute luck should be mitigated by societal
redistribution, while those arising from option luck should not necessarily be equalized, as
they reflect personal choices. To manage these types of inequalities, Dworkin proposes a fair
insurance market where individuals, placed behind a veil of ignorance, can determine the
level of protection they desire against different forms of misfortune. Dworkin’s approach,
therefore, prioritizes personal responsibility while ensuring that no one is disadvantaged by
circumstances beyond their control.

Prioritarianism and Sufficiency: Beyond Comparative Equality

Casal and Williams highlight other egalitarian frameworks that diverge from strict equality,
specifically focusing on prioritarianism and sufficiency. Prioritarianism, often associated
with Derek Parfit, holds that benefiting individuals matters more the worse off they are in
absolute terms. Unlike strict egalitarianism, which views any inequality as inherently unjust,
prioritarianism suggests that greater moral importance should be placed on improving the
welfare of the most disadvantaged, regardless of others' relative positions. This view allows
prioritarianism to avoid the "levelling down" objection, a critique of egalitarianism that
suggests strict equality could result in everyone being equally disadvantaged rather than
raising the overall welfare.
Sufficiency is another principle that shifts the focus from relative to absolute well-being.
Rather than prioritizing equality, sufficiency emphasizes that all individuals should have
"enough" resources to lead a minimally decent life. Once a basic threshold is met, additional
inequalities may be permissible. While some sufficiency advocates argue that inequality
becomes irrelevant once everyone’s needs are met, egalitarians contend that even when
individuals have enough, greater equality may still yield significant social benefits. In
addressing global inequality, for example, sufficientarians might prioritize poverty
eradication, while egalitarians would still seek to narrow the gap between the wealthiest and
the poorest.

Interpersonal Comparisons: Resources, Welfare, and Capabilities

Another core debate explored by Casal and Williams concerns the appropriate "currency of
justice"—the standard for assessing and comparing individuals' levels of advantage. Three
primary candidates have emerged: resources, welfare, and capabilities. Resource-based
standards, like Dworkin’s, focus on material holdings, while welfare-based standards
emphasize personal satisfaction and preference fulfillment. Critics of welfare standards,
however, argue that they may "pander to expensive tastes," granting more resources to
individuals with extravagant preferences and penalizing those with simpler needs.
Amartya Sen’s capability approach offers an alternative, focusing on individuals’ abilities
to achieve valuable functionings, such as being well-nourished or literate. Sen's framework,
expanded by Martha Nussbaum, considers both external conditions and personal attributes,
making it particularly responsive to inequalities arising from disabilities or other
disadvantages that hinder one’s capacity to function fully. While promising, the capability
approach faces challenges in specifying which capabilities are essential and how to weigh
them against one another, potentially leading to conflicts in distributive justice.

Opportunity and Responsibility: Choice and Luck in Egalitarian Theory

Casal and Williams address the complex relationship between equality, opportunity, and
individual responsibility, particularly how societies should allocate the costs of personal
choices. For instance, should smokers be solely responsible for their health care costs, or
should society bear some of the burden? More permissive egalitarians argue for respecting
individuals’ freedom to make their own choices, while more restrictive egalitarians advocate
for a system that shares the costs of personal risks, such as smoking-related illnesses, across
society.
The issue of parenthood offers a compelling case study. While most societies grant
individuals the freedom to choose whether to have children, they differ on how to allocate the
costs and responsibilities of parenting. Casal and Williams explore whether parents, who
make the voluntary choice to have children, should bear the full costs of raising them.
Resource egalitarians might argue that parents should assume this burden, as they
voluntarily chose to incur it, while capability theorists might contend that society has a
vested interest in supporting families, particularly where parenting benefits children’s
capabilities and overall well-being.

Conclusion
Casal and Williams’ examination of equality encapsulates the richness and complexity of
egalitarian thought. The frameworks presented—justice as fairness, equality of resources,
prioritarianism, and sufficiency—reflect divergent yet overlapping visions of justice, each
with distinct implications for societal organization and individual responsibility. As global
inequality rises, their analysis underscores the importance of continuing to refine egalitarian
theories to address contemporary challenges. By balancing the demands of justice with
practical concerns, these theories offer pathways toward a fairer distribution of resources,
opportunities, and responsibilities, thus advancing the broader goals of social justice.
 2. LIBERTY: Jonathan Rilley
SUMMARY

Jonathan Riley's work on "Liberty" delves into a deep exploration of freedom as a

fundamental philosophical concept, building on and challenging established theories. Riley
analyzes the multiple dimensions of liberty, distinguishing between forms such as negative
and positive liberty, civil and political liberty, and examining their implications for justice,
rights, and self-regard. His approach underscores liberty’s significance not merely as an
abstract ideal but as a tangible, moral, and political principle in human life. Here’s a
breakdown of Riley's examination of liberty, with a particular focus on its core themes.

Introduction
Riley starts by addressing the enduring importance of liberty in philosophical discourse,
situating his arguments within the broader historical context of Enlightenment thinkers like
John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and modern theorists such as Isaiah Berlin and John
Stuart Mill. By examining liberty in relation to human rights, justice, and societal structure,
Riley emphasizes liberty's dual role as both a personal and collective concern. His
exploration acknowledges the complexity of liberty as an essential component of democratic
societies, where individual autonomy must be reconciled with the common good. Riley’s
work thus bridges classical theories with contemporary concerns, questioning how liberty can
exist in harmony with social obligations.

Liberty and Rights

A central theme in Riley’s analysis is the relationship between liberty and rights. He argues
that rights are the mechanisms through which liberty is protected and actualized. In Riley’s
view, rights serve as the practical tools that define and safeguard individual freedoms within
a society. Without clearly defined rights, liberty is vulnerable to the whims of external forces
—be they political, economic, or social. Riley also discusses how rights are tied to individual
autonomy, as they establish the boundaries within which individuals can act freely without
interference. This connection makes rights indispensable for realizing a stable, coherent
understanding of liberty.

Negative and Positive Liberty

Riley builds on Isaiah Berlin’s concept of negative and positive liberty, but with nuanced
distinctions. Negative liberty, as Riley describes, is the absence of obstacles or interference
from others. It is a form of freedom from external coercion, where the individual can act
unimpeded within a defined domain. Riley notes that negative liberty is central to liberal
democracies, where personal autonomy and private life are highly valued.
Conversely, positive liberty involves the capacity to act according to one’s true self or
rational will, aligning with self-mastery and self-realization. Positive liberty goes beyond
mere absence of constraints, emphasizing the empowerment and resources necessary to act
freely. Riley points out that positive liberty can lead to tension with individual autonomy
when it demands adherence to collective norms. He examines how this form of liberty has
often been invoked by collectivist ideologies to justify social controls. Riley ultimately
argues that a balance between negative and positive liberty is crucial, as each serves different,
complementary purposes within society.

Civil Liberty and Political Liberty

Riley draws distinctions between civil and political liberty, analyzing their
interconnectedness within a democratic framework. Civil liberty, according to Riley,
concerns the individual’s freedom to live without arbitrary interference in matters of personal
life, such as privacy, property, and association. It is foundational for a liberal state and forms
the basis for protecting individual choices from excessive state intervention.
Political liberty, on the other hand, is the right of individuals to participate actively in the
governance of their society. It includes rights to vote, express opinions, and be involved in
decision-making processes. Riley notes that political liberty is essential for a functioning
democracy, as it ensures that individuals are not merely passive recipients of laws but active
contributors to societal norms. The challenge, as Riley presents it, lies in reconciling civil and
political liberty, as unchecked political liberty may sometimes infringe on civil rights. His
argument stresses that a balanced relationship between these liberties is essential to ensure
both individual and collective well-being.

Justice, Security, and Liberty

Riley presents justice and security as fundamental components for ensuring liberty. Justice, as
he argues, provides the ethical framework within which liberty operates, defining the fair
distribution of rights and resources. Without a sense of justice, liberty can be misused,
leading to inequality and oppression. Riley explores various theories of justice, including
distributive and retributive justice, and concludes that justice in the form of equal respect for
persons is essential for a just society.
Security, according to Riley, is also necessary to protect liberty. In a society plagued by fear,
liberty is threatened as individuals may sacrifice freedoms for a sense of safety. Riley,
however, warns against excessive prioritization of security, which could lead to
authoritarianism. He stresses that a balanced approach is needed, where security measures are
implemented without infringing upon fundamental rights and liberties. By maintaining a just
and secure environment, societies can create conditions that allow individuals to exercise
liberty meaningfully.

The Right to Absolute Self-Regarding Liberty

One of the more controversial aspects Riley addresses is the concept of absolute self-
regarding liberty. This idea, influenced by John Stuart Mill, suggests that individuals have an
absolute right to make choices about their own lives, as long as these choices do not harm
others. Riley defends this position, arguing that self-regarding actions should not be subject
to social or legal constraints, as such restrictions infringe upon personal autonomy.
However, Riley acknowledges the complexities surrounding self-regarding liberty, especially
when societal norms come into play. He discusses the challenges of defining what constitutes
self-regarding behavior versus behavior that indirectly impacts others. Riley argues for a
principled approach where individuals are granted as much freedom as possible, but without
compromising the rights and welfare of others. This framework, he asserts, is essential for
fostering a society that respects both individual autonomy and collective harmony.

Conclusion
Riley's exploration of liberty offers a nuanced understanding that emphasizes the balance
between individual freedom and social responsibility. His detailed examination of the
different forms of liberty—negative, positive, civil, and political—provides a comprehensive
framework for understanding how freedom operates within society. Riley underscores the
importance of rights as the practical means of realizing liberty, advocating for a just and
secure environment that allows individuals to exercise their freedoms fully.
In addressing absolute self-regarding liberty, Riley presents a compelling argument for
individual autonomy, tempered by considerations for the welfare of others. His work
demonstrates that liberty is not an isolated concept but one that interacts intricately with
justice, security, and rights. For Riley, the true challenge in realizing liberty lies in balancing
these interdependent elements to create a society that respects both individual freedoms and
collective obligations. His philosophical insights contribute to ongoing discussions on the
role of liberty in modern democracies, urging us to consider freedom not as an end in itself
but as a means of achieving a just and flourishing society.