Would you like to merge this question into it? MERGE already exists as an alternate of this question. Would you like to make it the primary and merge this question into it?
Preliminary Distinctions Egalitarianism is a contested concept in social and political thought. One might care about human equality in many ways, for many reasons. An egalitarian might rather be one who maintains that people ought to be treated as equals—as possessing equal fundamental worth and dignity and as equally morally considerable.
In this sense, a sample non-egalitarian would be one who believes that people born into a higher social caste, or a favored race or ethnicity, or with an above-average stock of traits deemed desirable, ought somehow to count for more than others in calculations that determine what morally ought to be done.
On the thought that the core egalitarian ideal is treating people as equals, see Dworkin Further norms of equality of condition or treatment might be viewed as free-standing or derived from the claim of equality of status.
Controversy also swirls around attempts to specify the class of beings to whom egalitarian norms apply. Some might count all and only human beings as entitled to equality of status. Some would hold that all and only persons have equal moral status, with the criteria of personhood excluding some humans from qualifying e.
Some would hold that sentient beings such as nonhuman primates that do not satisfy criteria of personhood are entitled to equal moral status along with persons.
Some advance other views. Egalitarian family essay can be instrumental or non-instrumental. Given a specification of some aspect of people's condition or mode of treating them that should be equal, one might hold that the state of affairs in which the stated equality obtains is morally valuable either as an end or as a means.
The instrumental egalitarian values equality as a means to some independently specifiable goal; the non-instrumental egalitarian values Egalitarian family essay for its own sake—as an end, or as partly constitutive of some end.
For example, someone who believes that the maintenance of equality across a group of people fosters relations of solidarity and community among them, and is desirable for that reason, qualifies as an instrumental egalitarian. Someone who believes that equality of some sort is a component of justice, and morally required as such, would be a non-instrumental egalitarian.
Equality of any sort might be valued conditionally or unconditionally. One values equality in the former way if equality is deemed valuable only if some further condition is in place.
One might hold that equality in the distribution of resources among a group of persons is valuable, but only on the condition that the individuals are equally deserving. Equality might be deemed to be desirable or undesirable. A separate and distinct range of questions concerns whether or not people ought to act to bring about equality or are obligated to bring about equality see Nagel The discussion to come often merges these questions, the assumption being that if equality is valuable, that is at least one good reason for thinking one should bring it about.
For those who regard equality as a requirement of justice, the question arises, whether this is a timeless unchanging or instead a variable requirement.
Michael Walzer is one who appears to take the latter view. According to Walzer, a society is just if and only if its practices and institutions are in accord with the shared values and cultural understandings of its people.
Democratic egalitarianism becomes a requirement of justice in modern societies, because this egalitarianism is an underlying important element of people's shared values and cultural understandings Walzer But this appearance may be misleading.
Walzer may hold that everyone at all times and places has an equal moral entitlement to be treated according to the shared norms and cultural understandings of one's people or group.
Walzer may also hold that everyone at all times and places has equal rights against gratuitous assault by people just seeking fun, whatever the local people's shared beliefs on this matter happen to be.
At any rate, we can identify clear exemplars of theorists who regard equality of a certain sort as a timeless unchanging moral requirement.
John Locke holds that everyone at all times and places has equal natural moral rights that all of us ought always to respect Locke The contemporary moral philosopher Thomas Scanlon holds that all people everywhere equally have the moral right to be treated according to the outcome of a procedure: It is a further question, to what extent this procedure issues in different non-rejectable principles in different times and places featuring different circumstances.
Egalitarianism can be formulated with a variety of roles in mind. For example, an egalitarian norm might be proposed as a fundamental moral principle. As such, it would be intended as a statement of the ultimate norm or as a member of the set of ultimate norms to which individual conduct and institutional arrangements ought to conform.
An ultimate norm might or might not be suitable for the role of guiding individual decision making or of serving as an explicitly recognized principle regulating institutions and public policy formation in a particular society.
If individual agents and public officials are liable through limited cognitive ability, limited knowledge, or limited allegiance to morality to misapply ultimate principles, it might well be the case that these principles could be implemented to a greater degree if they were not employed directly as decision-making guides for individual and public policy choice.
On this issue, see Hare Following this train of thought, one might favor as guidelines for individual and public choice simple, easily understood, readily implementable rules that are to serve as proxies for the moral principles that are the ultimate norms.
Or one might instead hold that the ultimate moral principles that fix what is right and wrong are well suited to be practical decision making guides. The point is merely that we should distinguish these distinct roles that moral norms might play and avoid criticizing a norm in one role by standards appropriate only if the norm is understood to be playing a different role.
Egalitarianism might be upheld as a moral requirement, a component of what we fundamentally owe one another, or as morally optional, a desirable ideal that we might permissibly decline to pursue.
When affirmed as morally required, egalitarianism typically figures in a theory of justice.•Describe your family environment based on Hagan’s Power-Control Theory.
•Do you see your behavior as being affected by coming from either a paternalistic or egalitarian family? ORDERR THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT!!!
The Dangers of Egalitarianism in a Democracy: If it can be said of an idea or a program that it promotes equality, Americans, whatever their political affiliations, will be loath to speak ill of the idea or to protest the program.
But radical egalitarianism leads to mob rule, which itself leads to tyranny (click the link below to view the full essay by Louis Markos).
65 Between the egalitarian and neotraditional family / artūras tereškinas What family types and gender attitudes are prevalent in contemporary. The Jacksonian era was egalitarian to a certain extent.
From a white male’s point of view equality had been achieved. How Egalitarian was Jacksonian Democracy? Essay. 0. Free Essays. Jackson himself appeared to be very egalitarian and was the first president not to come from a prominent colonial family,27 which shows he was more.
Egalitarianism Essays: Over , Egalitarianism Essays, Egalitarianism Term Papers, Egalitarianism Research Paper, Book Reports. ESSAYS, term and research papers available for UNLIMITED access In Poland woman are in the same line with man.
Law is the same for all people. Woman and man have aa equal law in family life, social life. Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy.
An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect.