Essay extract, Whats wrong with Equality

The egalitarian would argue that at the outcome of a race, all participants should be rewarded on the basis that each athlete partook in the race. Although this is decisively equal, it is obviously unjust; the athlete who came first should gain the greatest reward on the basis of his talent, commitment to training etc. This example demonstrates the gap between equality and meritocracy;[1] the best are rewarded on the basis of being the best. To say so otherwise because it is regarded as being unequal is to be unjust. Meritocracy is a justified inequality, in that it allows for those who wish to succeed, to succeed.

 Justified inequalities such as meritocracy are warranted in that they are supported and to a certain extent promoted by democracy. For example the “American Dream” was built on the principle that by committing oneself to hard work, one has the potential to improve his/her circumstances financially. Whilst the ‘intrinsic egalitarian’ would argue that it is intrinsically wrong for someone to be less ‘well off’[2] than themselves. It is obviously far too difficult for the worse off to be raised to the station of well off. Therefore intrinsic egalitarians would argue that a potential route to end inequality would be to separate the financially and socially endowed from their resources, thus making them ‘poorer’; therefore not only is such a concept unjust but it is also undemocratic. Although this is a radical case; Kurt Vonnegut comments on the injustice of absolute equality in his satirical novel, ‘Harrison Bergeron’. “Everybody was finally equal. / They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.”[3] The quote above, albeit unlikely; highlights the clear danger that absolute equality provides, especially when legitimized through a government body or an ideology. For example in February 2010, Pope Benedict XVI challenged the Labour government on the grounds that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill[4] was unjust because it restricted religious freedom and was against natural law. “The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”[5]  It is unjust to force religious practitioners to go against their teachings or else be liable to prosecution; once again demonstrating that equality is wrong, in the sense that it should not infringe on the intrinsic freedom to religion.

 Each individual is born decisively unequal, the baby in Somalia who was born at the same time as the baby in America, is already burdened with inequalities. Each human is thus different within society, all have the want and will to better themselves, mostly by using the talents of which they were born with or have developed as a result of their social environment, and all have the same nucleus of potentiality. Equality is wrong in that it seeks to suppress the natural instinct within man; Nietzsche described the natural instinct as “der Wille zur Macht.” [6]  Equality of outcome would seek to “cap” mans potential to succeed and reach fulfilment, from an existential point of view, this is a great injustice. Each individual has the will to power; any attempts made by intrinsic egalitarians only seek to contain this will, “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force.”[7] The concept of equality is in direct conflict with natural driving force behind the actions of man, for example Stalin’s and his successor’s autocratic dominance over the communist society of the Soviet Union. All were equal, but Stalin was definitely more equal than anyone else. The will to gain power and to rise above the masses is natural and Stalin’s rise in a society dominated by an ideology which projected equality as a core value is a perfect example of how man’s natural will, dominates in an intrinsic egalitarian environment.  It could be argued that Stalin’s initial potential to be a tyrant would have been naturally contained in a society which projected equality of opportunity, rather than the socialist equality of outcome.[8]  Therefore it can be argued from a Nietzschean perspective that equality is wrong in that it caters to the mentality of the “herd”, thereby minimizing the extent to which the individual is able to fulfil his/her potential in life.

---

[1] Concept that the awards, work positions, etc; go to those who are most talented and best able to fulfil the criteria of the area.

[2] Both financially and socially, the two of which have been closely linked throughout history.

[3] Within this novel , the state takes actions in forms of handicaps against people who they regard as being ‘above average’ in such this such as beauty, intelligence, strength etc. For example a citizen who has above average strength would be handicapped with weights.

[4] The proposed 2010 Equality Bill would make organisations such as the Roman Catholic faith viable to prosecution under the law; if they discriminated against women and homosexuals who wished to join the priesthood.

[5] Popes speech during the Cardinals “ad limina” visit..

[6] “The will to power” Nietzsche firmly believed that this was the motivating factor within the psyche of man. Or so told from the collected manuscripts, writings etc, of Friedrich.

[7] Nietzsche “The Will to Power” page 636.

[8] Obviously other factors were important to Stalin’s rise to power; the economic, military and political conditions of Soviet Russia are all factors. But the initial concept of the equality of outcome within socialism allowed for this character to achieve dominance.