Equality By Simone Weil Summary

Equality is something we humans crave for when we are in a time of hardship. When we are being discriminated against, we feel the utmost pain and the need for freedom. Discrimination has lingered since the beginning of time, and ending it is impracticable. A French novelist, Honore de Balzac proclaims, “Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.” Here, Balzac is acknowledging that an individual is born a free man and is just as equal as any other man. But, an individual will never be fully equal as they desire. Some parts of society will try to act superior to a certain quality of someone’s life, like their race, religion, culture, etc. This statement proves to be valid in Khaled Hosseini’s novel,

Shelby bases his theory and principle of justice on John Rawls’s theory of justice. He states that the first principle states that each person has an equal claim to basic liberties. Basic liberties here include being treated fairly by institutions because we each have to make a life for ourselves under the domain of these institutions. In his article Shelby argues that each since each individual’s life prospects are deeply shaped by the social structure around them, we cannot blame those in the ghettos for acting the way that they do. The second principle says that social and economic inequalities are just only if they are attached to offices and conditions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. Rawls has a second part to his second principle outlining that the least advantaged of society are to be the ones that receive the greatest benefit overall. Shelby

Thirdly, he examines how social structures and legal systems are working, and how nothing is as fair as it is meant to be. Through these examples, he analyses, describes, and presents these ideas under the surface

Although different societies have varying perceptions of what is an acceptable level of equity, it is generally accepted that inequality has an impact on key social determinants such as health, wellbeing, political trust and violence. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) highlight the social costs of inequality on a whole range of aspects of our lives. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) argue that if inequality were reduced, there would be significant reductions in mental illness, murder rates, imprisonment and an improvement in social mobility (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009).

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

Robert Green Ingersoll, a lawyer, Civil War veteran, and political leader, once said that "It is a blessed thing that in every age some one had had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions." In Ayn Rand's novel Anthem, Equality 7-2521 represents this salient being. Equality has never been destined to be a street sweeper, instead, it is a sinister motive of the Council that determines his position. This is proven by several aspects throughout the book, encompassing the idea that Equality has been set aside from society from a young age, Equality is an individual in a communistic society, and that the Council has had unjust determinations

This essay question asks to discuss some of the ways in which differences and inequalities persist over time. Thus demonstrating that they are not fixed, but forever changing, being caused in diverse ways by society. The essay will first define ‘Inequality’ and ‘Differences’. It will then use two strands, ‘Making Lives’ and ‘Ordering Lives’ to discuss how they persist and will look at some differences and inequalities within, wealth, homelessness, law, and class. Concluding the whole world is effected by continuing inequalities and differences, which is only getting worse.

Equality is pushed upon each citizen. But with this equality, comes aforementioned characteristics: submission, hopelessness, detachedness, conformity, and isolation. Superiority is punished. As written in chapter I, "It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them" (21). In this way, uniqueness is repressed when it should be

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than

The distributive justice theory of John Rawls concerns justice as fairness. In his theory, Rawls defines justice as demanding equality, unless inequality makes the least advantaged person better off. Rawls proposes two major principles of justice: (1) that each person should have the same equal right to basic liberties and (2) that social and economic inequalities are attached to positions and offices open to all under equality of opportunity and are to the benefit of the least advantaged group of society. This theory is determined by a social contract that assumes there is a natural state on which people will agree based on moral equality. In this social contract, all members wear a veil of ignorance through which they do not know anything about their own

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

Across all nations and cultures, the enduring pursuit of equality in life seems global and timeless. Some would believe that their own country has achieved a true democracy with no residual inequalities of which to speak, while others know they are at the other end of the spectrum, enduring unjust laws that should not be bestowed on any human. Through the course of history many countries have fought for that democracy and all the equality that it implies. While some believe they have reached that goal, others continue to fight for the most basic human rights, even in this time of enlightenment. The journey each country takes on its road to that place may vary by origination, length, severity and outcome, but the goal seems to be the

Having discussed the issue of inequality and its interrelationship with both discrimination and oppression, the essay will, at this point, focus on what factors actually influence these matters. Society, of course, holds a key role in promoting and not abolishing unfair treatments through constant marginalization, disloyal competition and social comparison. Socialisation is another process that influences the way we conduct ourselves towards certain groups of people and reinforces stereotypes – for instance, some raised in a religious environment that does not agree with or recognises homosexuality, might develop a prejudice against gay people. The “rules”, the norms and the values that shape us since childhood, set the background for social inequality and lead to a

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

John Rawls discusses the original position in his book A Theory of Justice. “The Original Position and Justification” is a chapter where Rawls persuades his readers into taking the original position seriously. The original position is a position where people are equal and are rational in order to make principles that they live by fair. However, there is a problem with rational decisions being biased, where people will choose principles to benefit themselves. Therefore, the veil of ignorance will restrict a person’s knowledge about social status, intelligence, gender, race, ethnicity, and temperament. This will then define principles of justice that will not be advantage or a disadvantage to anyone in a society. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this essay is to explain the reasons Rawls gives to favor the original position. I will then oppose to Rawls argument with two of my own reasons about the veil of ignorance not being realistic and the equal of human beings not being plausible.