HOME
        TheInfoList






Islam

The Quran states: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted".[24] Muhammad echoed these egalitarian sentiments, sentiments that clashed with the practices of the pre-Islamic cultures. In a review of Louise Marlow's Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Ismail Poonawala wrote: "With the establishment of the Arab-Muslim Empire, however, this egalitarian notion, as well as other ideals, such as social justice and social service, that is, alleviating suffering and helping the needy, which constituted an integral part of the Islamic teaching, slowly receded into the background. The explanation given for this change generally reiterates the fact that the main concern of the ruling authorities became the consolidation of their power and the administration of the state rather than upholding and implementing those Islamic ideals nurtured by the Qur'an and the Prophet."[25]

Christianity

The Bible states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."[26] In 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. cited the passage in a pamphlet oppositing racial segregation in the United States. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ."[27] He also alluded to the verse at the end of his "I have a dream" speech.[28] Considered in its entirety, the verse is cited to support an egalitarian interpretation of Christianity.[29] According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the central question debated by theologians "is whether the statement in Galatians 3:28 about ecclesiastical relationships can be translated into a Christian-ethical norm for all human relationships".[30] Vorster argues that it can, and that the verse provides a Christian foundation for the promotion of human rights and equality, in contrast to "patriarchy, racism and exploitation" which in his opinion are caused by human sinfulness.[30] According to Karin Neutel, "Contemporary interpreters have updated Paul’s statement and added pairs to the three original ones: 'neither gay nor straight,' 'neither healthy nor disabled,' and 'neither black nor white.'... [The original] three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today." She argues that the verse points to a utopian, cosmopolitan community.[28]

Modern egalitarianism theory

Modern egalitarianism is a theory that rejects the classic definition of egalitarianism as a possible achievement economically, politically and socially. Modern egalitarianism theory, or new egalitarianism, outlines that if everyone had the same opportunity cost,[clarification needed] then there would be no comparative advances and no one would gain from trading with each other. In essence, the immense gains people receive from trading with each other arise because they are unequal in characteristics and talents—these differences may be innate or developed so that people can gain from trading with each other.[31]

Reception

The cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism, with fatalism termed as its opposite,[32] as defined by:

  1. A negative attitude towards rules and principles.
  2. A positive attitude towards group decision-making.[32]

The theory distinguishes between hierarchists, who are positive towards both rules and groups; and egalitarianists, who are positive towards groups, but negative towards rules.[32] This is by definition a form of anarchist equality as referred to by Alexander Berkman. Thus, the fabric of an egalitarianist society is held together by cooperation and implicit peer pressure rather than by explicit rules and punishment. Thompson et al. theorize that any society consisting of only one perspective, be it egalitarianist, hierarchist, individualist, fatalist or autonomist, will be inherently unstable as the claim is that an interplay between all these perspectives are required if each perspective is to be fulfilling. For instance, although an individualist according to cultural theory is aversive towards both principles and groups, individualism is not fulfilling if individual brilliance cannot be recognized by groups, or if individual brilliance cannot be made permanent in the form of principles.[32] Accordingly, egalitarianists have no power except through their presence, unless they (by definition, reluctantly) embrace principles which enable them to cooperate with fatalists and hierarchists. They will also have no individual sense of direction in the absence of a group. This could be mitigated by following individuals outside their group, namely autonomists or individualists.

Berkman suggests that "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity ... Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact ... Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is an equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality ... Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse".[33]

Marxism

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that an international proletarian revolution would bring about a socialist society which would then eventually give way to a communist stage of social development which would be a classless, stateless, moneyless, humane society erected on common ownership of the means of production and the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest such as a universal notion of equality, but it was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires, making Marx's notion of communist society radically individualistic.[34]

Marx was a proponent of two principles, with the first ("To each according to his contribution") being applied to socialism and the second ("To each according to their needs") to an advanced communist society. Although his position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.[35]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Definition of equalitarianism". The Free Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
  2. ^ "equalitarianism". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  3. ^ "egalitarian". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  4. ^ "Egalitarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab. Stanford University. 2019.
  5. ^ Robertson, David (2007). The Routledge Dictionary of Politics. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-415-32377-2.agriculturalism which held that the economic policies of a country need to be based upon an egalitarian self-sufficiency.[15]

    In socialism, social ownership of means of production is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an economy characterized by social ownership the surplus product generated by industry would accrue to the population as

    In socialism, social ownership of means of production is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an economy characterized by social ownership the surplus product generated by industry would accrue to the population as a whole as opposed to a class of private owners, thereby granting each individual increased autonomy and greater equality in their relationships with one another. Although the economist Karl Marx is sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative theorizing on moral principles altogether. Marx did have a theory of the evolution of moral principles concerning specific economic systems.[16]

    The American economist John Roemer has put forth a new perspective of equality and its relationship to socialism. Roemer attempts to reformulate Marxist analysis to accommodate normative principles of distributive justice, shifting the argument for socialism away from purely technical and materialist reasons to one of distributive justice. Roemer argues that according to the principle of distributive justice, the traditional definition of socialism based on the principle that individual compensation is proportional to the value of the labor one expends in production ("To each according to his contribution") is inadequate. Roemer concludes that egalitarians must reject socialism as it is classically defined in order for equality to be realized.[17]

    Many philosophers, including Ingmar Persson,[18] Peter Vallentyne,[19] Nils Holtug,[20] Catia Faria[21] and Lewis Gompertz,[22] have argued that egalitarianism implies that the interests of non-human animals must be taken into account as well. Philosopher Oscar Horta has further argued that "[e]galitarianism implies rejecting speciesism, and in practice, it prescribes ceasing to exploit nonhuman animals" and that we should aid animals suffering in nature.[23] Furthermore, Horta argues that "because [nonhuman animals] are worse off in comparison to humans, egalitarianism prescribes giving priority to the interests of nonhuman animals".[23]

    Religious and spiritual egalitarianism

    The Quran states: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted".[24] Muhammad echoed these egalitarian sentiments, sentiments that clashed with the practices of the pre-Islamic cultures. In a review of Louise Marlow's Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Ismail Poonawala wrote: "With the establishment of the Arab-Muslim Empire, however, this egalitarian notion, as well as other ideals, such as social justice and social service, that is, alleviating suffering and helping the needy, which constituted an integral part of the Islamic teaching, slowly receded into the background. The explanation given for this change generally reiterates the fact that the main concern of the ruling authorities became the consolidation of their power and the administration of the state rather than upholding and implementing those Islamic ideals nurtured by the Qur'an and the Prophet."[25]

    Christianity

    The Bible states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."[26] In 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. cited the passage in a pamphlet oppositing racial segregation in the United States. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ."[27] He also alluded to the verse at the end of his "I have a dream" speech.[28] Considered in its entirety, the verse is cited to support an egalitarian interpretation of Christianity.[29] According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the c

    The Bible states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."[26] In 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. cited the passage in a pamphlet oppositing racial segregation in the United States. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ."[27] He also alluded to the verse at the end of his "I have a dream" speech.[28] Considered in its entirety, the verse is cited to support an egalitarian interpretation of Christianity.[29] According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the central question debated by theologians "is whether the statement in Galatians 3:28 about ecclesiastical relationships can be translated into a Christian-ethical norm for all human relationships".[30] Vorster argues that it can, and that the verse provides a Christian foundation for the promotion of human rights and equality, in contrast to "patriarchy, racism and exploitation" which in his opinion are caused by human sinfulness.[30] According to Karin Neutel, "Contemporary interpreters have updated Paul’s statement and added pairs to the three original ones: 'neither gay nor straight,' 'neither healthy nor disabled,' and 'neither black nor white.'... [The original] three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today." She argues that the verse points to a utopian, cosmopolitan community.[28]

    Modern egalitarianism theory

    The The cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism, with fatalism termed as its opposite,[32] as defined by:

    1. A negative attitude towards rules and principles.
    2. A positive attitude towards group decision-making.[32]

    The theory distinguishes between hierarchists, who are pos

    The theory distinguishes between hierarchists, who are positive towards both rules and groups; and egalitarianists, who are positive towards groups, but negative towards rules.[32] This is by definition a form of anarchist equality as referred to by Alexander Berkman. Thus, the fabric of an egalitarianist society is held together by cooperation and implicit peer pressure rather than by explicit rules and punishment. Thompson et al. theorize that any society consisting of only one perspective, be it egalitarianist, hierarchist, individualist, fatalist or autonomist, will be inherently unstable as the claim is that an interplay between all these perspectives are required if each perspective is to be fulfilling. For instance, although an individualist according to cultural theory is aversive towards both principles and groups, individualism is not fulfilling if individual brilliance cannot be recognized by groups, or if individual brilliance cannot be made permanent in the form of principles.[32] Accordingly, egalitarianists have no power except through their presence, unless they (by definition, reluctantly) embrace principles which enable them to cooperate with fatalists and hierarchists. They will also have no individual sense of direction in the absence of a group. This could be mitigated by following individuals outside their group, namely autonomists or individualists.

    Berkman suggests that "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity ... Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quan

    Berkman suggests that "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity ... Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact ... Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is an equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality ... Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse".[33]

    Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that an international proletarian revolution would bring about a socialist society which would then eventually give way to a communist stage of social development which would be a classless, stateless, moneyless, humane society erected on common ownership of the means of production and the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest such as a universal notion of equality, but it was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires, making Marx's notion of communist society radically individualistic.[34]

    Marx was a proponent of two principles, with the first ("To each according to his contribution") being applied to socialism and the second ("To each according to their needs") to an advanced commu

    Marx was a proponent of two principles, with the first ("To each according to his contribution") being applied to socialism and the second ("To each according to their needs") to an advanced communist society. Although his position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.[35]