322 deep freedomthat could be performed by machines are by that very fact suspect. Th e
presumption weighing against them is, however, relative and rebutta-
ble. Th e existence of alternatives, feasible in the prevailing condition of
scientifi c and technological development, determines whether the pre-
sumption can be defeated. Even when it can, however, what matters,
once again, is the trajectory: the opening of a path of change of institu-
tions and of beliefs that press beyond them, taking advantage of the in-
determinate possibilities created by science and technology and moving
in a par tic u lar direction.
Fourth, inequalities of circumstance that result from the reproduction
of class society by the hereditary transmission of unequal economic and
educational advantage through the family are to be combatted. Only the
institutionalized broadening of economic and educational opportu-
nity can eff ectively overcome them. A more intractable problem re-
sults from what ever part of in e qual ity of circumstance can be attrib-
uted to in e qual ity of natural endowments. As the development of an
endowment is usually its own chief reward, the temptation further to
reward its expression is to be opposed within the limits of what is rea-
sonable and feasible for such imitative and praise- seeking individuals
as we are.
Fift h, inequalities of circumstance may be defended by their sup-
posed contribution to the development of the wealth and practical
powers of society. However, the inequalities thus justifi ed must never
be allowed to accumulate to the point of trespassing on the concerns
expressed by the fi rst two ideas (the primacy of equality of respect and
of opportunity and the exclusion of inequalities that result in privileged
strangleholds on the making of the future). Th ey must be prevented
from relegating the mass of ordinary men and women to dependent
wage labor or to formulaic, machine- like work (the third idea). More-
over, they should not be allowed to serve as a disguise for the legitima-
tion of class society or for the veneration of exceptional endowments
under the banner of merit. Such veneration is a species of power wor-
ship, an inverted Prometheanism. It is poisonous to the public culture
of a free society and incompatible with the view of humanity that such
a culture shares with the religion of the future.
Sixth, we should approach the reconciliation of the fi ft h idea with the
other four in the spirit of an open- minded, experimental, and hopeful