take home midterm.doc
2. Is equality per se desirable or valuable? If so, should the state seek to achieve equality, in
what dimensions, and with what limits? Please answer with reference to ideas we have studied
during the class.
Equality is not valuable on its own, it must be combined with other foundations in order to
have a desirable system of justice. The state should seek equality, but not solely equality for its
own sake. An equitable system constructed to the exclusion of any other consideration of what
makes a life worth living will breed equitable misery.
One such system is the one that would come from the original position if the principle of
total utility were chosen, along with only the consideration of equality. The world would be
structured such that the sum of happiness/utility is the highest. However, this conception has a
significant flaw. If there were a world full of only people who are all live and die suffering, as
long as each had equal pain, and all had utils greater than zero, then this world would be
considered just. The introduction of new individuals into this world who would certainly face a
life of pain would be encouraged by this system. Here, equality does nothing to promote a life
worth living. It’s not good enough, not sufficiently just, to say that they are all equal.
Equality ought to be included in a conception of justice, but not at the cost of other facets,
such as liberty or quality of life. A state ought to limit equality in order to further these aims, and
possibly others. Additionally, equality is important but not just equality in distribution. Equality
in historically conscious redistribution is also an important factor for a state to consider.
what dimensions, and with what limits? Please answer with reference to ideas we have studied
during the class.
Equality is not valuable on its own, it must be combined with other foundations in order to
have a desirable system of justice. The state should seek equality, but not solely equality for its
own sake. An equitable system constructed to the exclusion of any other consideration of what
makes a life worth living will breed equitable misery.
One such system is the one that would come from the original position if the principle of
total utility were chosen, along with only the consideration of equality. The world would be
structured such that the sum of happiness/utility is the highest. However, this conception has a
significant flaw. If there were a world full of only people who are all live and die suffering, as
long as each had equal pain, and all had utils greater than zero, then this world would be
considered just. The introduction of new individuals into this world who would certainly face a
life of pain would be encouraged by this system. Here, equality does nothing to promote a life
worth living. It’s not good enough, not sufficiently just, to say that they are all equal.
Equality ought to be included in a conception of justice, but not at the cost of other facets,
such as liberty or quality of life. A state ought to limit equality in order to further these aims, and
possibly others. Additionally, equality is important but not just equality in distribution. Equality
in historically conscious redistribution is also an important factor for a state to consider.