Andries Louis Joubert

There are different forms of egalitarianism but the most extreme and unreasonable one involves “equality of outcomes,” or that everyone should be the same in some respect (usually wealth). Equality of outcomes (in terms of wealth) implies communism and its influence can be seen in left-wing politics. If this is the wrong type of egalitarianism, what is the correct type? It can be called “equality of consideration” or non-discrimination, though, in reality, this is nothing but fairness. People should be considered equally by the government and employers and any other person who has the power to make decisions about their lives. Conservatives often talk of “equality of opportunity.” This sometimes means the same thing as equality of consideration, but it can also mean something that is the same as equality of outcomes. If everybody should have the same opportunities, then they must start out from the same position, meaning that outcomes must be the same as well. The target of my criticism will be equality-of-outcomes and socialist egalitarianism. A good example of equality-of-outcomes egalitarianism is feminist activism, which attempted to use affirmative action to increase female representation in the workplace, rather than letting meritocracy take care of any inequities. Affirmative action is a tool used by equality-of-outcomes egalitarianism, since it rejects equality of consideration in favour of the idea that there should be more or less the same proportion of the population, in terms of characteristics like race and sex, in the workplace as in the general population. Apart from being almost impossible to achieve, this is unethical, because it rejects simple fairness. Of course, some people just want to push representation a little, without wanting to achieve equality of outcomes regarding those traits.

A Case Against Socialist Egalitarianism

Social democracies in Europe are also motivated by a concern for socialist egalitarianism, even though social services can be justified apart from such egalitarianism. It is not inequality, but poverty, that’s the problem. Nobody has much of a problem with inequality between the rich and richer. It is benevolence (best encapsulated by utilitarianism), rather than equality, that should motivate a concern for the poor. But doesn’t it seem unfair for people to be born with a leg up on others and shouldn’t society try to correct this unfairness? It’s true that something about it does feel unfair. However, if it is wrong for any given person to have more than any other person, then the ideal world is one where everybody has exactly the same attributes and talents in every single way, as any differences in talent, intelligence or character would imply inequality. That would be a very dull place to live in. Socialist egalitarianism also implies that all envy and jealousy is morally justified. If someone has more than you in any respect and you feel anger toward them for this, you are justified, and then you would also, by implication, be justified in attempting to destroy what they have that you don’t. For this reason, it is socialist egalitarianism that is the true slave morality, the drive to reduce every excellence to rubble. Unfortunately, socialist egalitarianism motivates one to strike upward as well as helping downward. Most of the effects of “income inequality” might really be the effects of poverty, including social division, reduced social mobility, health issues etc. Inequality and relative deprivation (the cause of social division) only become a real problem when you’re poor. Then you feel keenly what you don’t have and what others have. Everybody in the West who believes in socialist egalitarianism is also a hypocrite, since they are morally obligated by their theory to give away their money and assets until they are equal to the poorest of the poor in the world. If they truly believe that egalitarianism dictates that billionaires should not be allowed to have so much wealth, then nobody in Western societies should have as much as they have, because there are people in the world who are poorer than them.

A Utilitarian Case Against Socialist Egalitarianism

If equality of outcomes is a moral imperative, then some type of communism must be the right political system. However, if communism doesn’t work (i.e. doesn’t result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people), then it can’t be a moral requirement. This means that equality of outcomes is not a moral requirement. There’s also no point in half-measures, in pushing equality a little if it can’t be absolute. Morally, either it should be implemented or it shouldn’t. Also, if you believe that inequality is an evil, is it more evil than poverty? Poverty causes much greater suffering, and is therefore much more evil. Since communism causes much greater poverty than capitalism, it is more immoral than capitalism, even if inequality is an evil. Hopefully, humanity can move on from this foolish and destructive conceit so that we can fully embrace the progressivism inherent in capitalism and the power of simple fairness to correct injustices.