An examination of the Debate regarding the Compatibility between Equality and Liberty

An examination of the Debate regarding the Compatibility between Equality and Liberty

An examination of Prominent Early Literature

Introduction

The debate surrounding equality and liberty are ones borne out of the seeming incompatibility at and near the end of the spectrum for both factors. Societies function within systems where liberties can be limited to ensure equality; by collectively abiding to a set of laws to ensure overall liberties of individuals are not violated (Gutmann, 1980). On the other hand, the ideals of equality often aid liberties; by implementing equitable justice measures for those who violate others liberties (Gutmann, 1980). This paper examines the arguments for and against the compatibility of equality and liberty. To this end, the paper has applied an archival research method to assess significant historic viewpoints regarding the subject matter. As such, the paper includes a thorough background on the different interpretations of Equality and Liberty along with the relationship they maintain under different interpretations. The paper then examines an argument that, ‘equality infringes upon liberty’ along with a proportioned response and finally concludes its arguments in a concise paragraph.

Historical Background

As argued by authors such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, equality is naturally imbued amongst men. Hobbes (1946, p.63) states in his revered work, Leviathan, that, “nature hath made man so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind…” referring to the similarity that human beings naturally share.  However, Hobbes’ interpretation of such equality is not only implicit, in their commonality, but also explicit, in the necessities that are shared to nurture and grow one-self and the society at large. The theory, therefore, prescribes to the foundational philosophes represented in Social Darwinism (Weikart, 1995). As such, persons subsisting within ungoverned societal conditions are bound to be in a constant state of conflict to obtain the resources they require, and are consequently, a threat to each other. Hobbes’ definition of natural equality, thus, functions as a preamble to the need for a society governed by a state of authority to limit unchecked liberties, and subsequently, absolute freedom. This statement is in essence the debate about the co-existence of liberty and equality. Simply put, with absolute liberty there can be no absolute freedoms and vice-versa.

John Locke (1980, p.8) believed, equality in its truest form necessitates that “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another”, adding a further caveat of it having to be “without subordination or subjection”. As such, Locke presents his ideals of equality as a naturally inclusive one intertwined with the ideals of liberty and freedom. Locke (1847, p.27) further states that “even outlaws and robbers, who break with all the world besides, must keep faith and rules of equity amongst themselves” illustrating that functionality of the ideals of equality is obtainable even outside the rule of law.

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics presented the view of Distributive justice, which elude to these distinctions by presenting the idea that equals should be treated equally and vice versa (Thomson, 1955). The viewpoint allows of social inequalities to be adjusted within the ideals of equality if it fulfils the utilitarian idea; by benefiting the most people within said society, thereby infringing upon both liberty and equality. As such, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1999) in his 1755 publication Discourses argues that ‘distributive justice’ is still in opposition to the ideas of what he calls ‘rigorous equality of the state of nature’ or natural equality. Rousseau, however acknowledges that such distinctions in societal rank; through distributed power and wealth, are inevitable as they are part of the civilisation process.

Presented Arguments

Claim: Equality Infringes upon Liberty

Milton Friedman (1962) illustrated an example pertaining to four hypothetical Robinson Crusoes stranded on four islands independently though within a contiguous neighbourhood. The hypothetical states that one of the four was fortunate enough to land on a large and fertile island; with plentiful resources, while the rest were stranded on tiny barren ones; adding that they could barely scratch a living on said lands. He then postulates that it would be generous of the prosperous Crusoe to share his resources, but were he decides not to, would it be just for the rest to band together and force him to share said resources (Friedman, 1953). The inclination he assumes for most would be to say yes. Thus, there is another analogous event he hypotheses in a more personal visage by stating that if you were to find a $20 bill o