would simply not occur to those in a higher stratum that they must justify their
advantaged position, or that those in a lower stratum should question their
subordinate position.
- Equality before the law That laws apply equally to those who are subject to
them is widely accepted as a foundational belief of many, if not most, societies.
It could be argued that this applied even in Hitler’s Germany. After the 1935
Nuremburg Laws were passed Jews (as defined by the state) were denied many
rights, but consistent with ‘treating like cases alike’ it could be argued that legal
equality was respected insofar as all members of the class defined by the state as
Jews were treated alike: all were equally subject to the laws, despite the laws
themselves being discriminatory. However, we argue in the section on Legal
Equality that equality before the law is a stronger idea, which implies that there
must be compelling reasons for unequal treatment.
- Equal liberty A common assumption, especially on the right, is that equality and
liberty (freedom) conflict. Certainly, if we were in Hobbes’s state of nature, and
enjoyed ‘pure’ liberty, that is, we were under no duties to refrain from behaving
as we choose, then the exercise of liberty would reflect natural inequalities,
including any bad luck that might befall us. But under a state, while our liberty
is restricted, the possibility exists for a degree of protection (through ‘rights’),
such that a space is provided in which we are free to act without the danger
of other people interfering in our actions. Once we move from pure liberty to
protected liberty an issue of distribution – and, therefore, a trade-off between
equality and liberty – arises. Although the state cannot distribute the exercise of
choice, it can distribute rights to do certain things. Of course, even though
liberty-protecting rights can be distributed this does not mean that equality and
liberty never conflict (we discuss possible conflicts in the section on Equal
Liberties).
- Material equality The most significant disputes in many societies are connected
with the distribution of income, and other tangible material goods, such as
education and health care. To understand this debate requires a discussion of
class, because the capacity to acquire material goods is to some extent, and
perhaps a very great extent, conditioned by structures that individuals do not
control. From birth – and even before birth – a person is set on a course, at each
stage of which she has some power to gain or lose material goods, but, arguably,
the choices are restricted. Put simply, a person born into a wealthy family has
more opportunities than someone with a poor background.
- Equal access If a society places barriers in the way of certain groups acquiring
material goods, such as jobs and services, as happened with regard to blacks in
the Southern States of the United States until the 1960s, then equal access is
denied. On the face of it, guaranteeing equal access may appear closely connected
with material equality, but, in fact, it has more to do with equal civic and political
rights, or liberty: the liberty to compete for jobs, and buy goods.
- Equality of opportunityUnlike equal access this isa principle of material equal -
ity, and, although it commands rhetorical support across the political spectrum,
in any reasonably strong version it has significant implications for the role of
the state in individual and family life. If a society attempts to guarantee the
equal opportunity to acquire, for example, a particular job, then it is going much
further than simply removing legal obstacles to getting the job. Realising equal
Chapter 3 Equality 57
