When Should We Address Inequality? Julien Levieux, Year 13, Churchill As I am writing this, anti-racism protest are flaring around the globe, demanding a realisation of long-running injustices and an end to the discrimination of minorities. Triggered by the graphic death of George Floyd and unfazed by the coronavirus threat, protesters have ignited many debates on policing, reparations, the evaluation of historical figures and specific societal principles such as universalism. Yet their message remains clear: to many, society in its current form is littered with various social inequalities, and must change. This is not the first time in 2020 that people have demanded a reduction in inequality. At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there was a marked contrast between how wealthier residents in developed countries could stay at home while those deemed ‘essential workers’ had to work as usual, often with inadequate protection. This has led to calls for a new social contract with more workers’ rights and a reduction in economic inequality. As the pandemic progressed to developing countries, another contrast emerged between the economic response of developed and developing countries. The question of debt relief and other problems of global justice subsequently re-emerged. Most would say that there is something unfair in each of these situations that need change. The question of when we should address inequality in general, however, is a more difficult question of justice that requires deeper examination. To do so, I will explore, specifically, when we should address social, economic and global inequalities through a philosophical lens. Through this, I hope to help inform your position so that you may know where you stand in this debate. Social inequality At its most basic level, humans object to deliberately imposed inequalities in society. Most object to state-sanctioned racial, gender, ethnic or religious discrimination that deliberately excludes people from education, jobs and other areas in the social sphere. This type of discrimination is unfair because it permanently affects people’s welfare for no good reason. For example, why should we exclude someone from a job based on their skin colour? Aside from prejudice, there is no good reason. Fairness in society requires that opportunities are open to those who are
44 I
When Should We Address Inequality?
deserving and qualified, and that judgement of somebody does not rest on prejudiced and irrelevant factors. So, when a government imposes discriminatory laws, this gives ground to act and tackle social inequality. Nevertheless, many of the social justice movements of late – Me Too, Black Lives Matter and so on – object not necessarily to discriminatory laws but to a discriminatory culture. Activists against racism may note that while racist Jim Crow laws no longer exist in the United States, the police disproportionately kill Black people. Feminists may note that laws prevent employers from discriminating based on gender, but some industries remain overwhelmingly dominated by men. Both cases seem to highlight how people are still judged by irrelevant and prejudiced factors, despite laws preventing this. Are these good grounds to call for change? Some may disagree. An extreme position would be to say that the basic standards of right and wrong depend entirely on society’s values. A racist culture may be wrong in one community but not in another, because the values are different. We should therefore not tackle a racist culture in a racist society, as it values such a culture – there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about racism. Such a view would be an example of moral relativism. Judging by the way I write, you can probably tell I find it very hard to believe in this position. Not only is it frequently an argument used by racists (“We like our culture the way it is”), there are two other problems with this argument. One, if laws already exist to prevent discrimination, that should indicate that society no longer values said discrimination. Two, if social justice movements are only justified if they align with society’s current values, that seems to preclude any minority-led calls for change. This is an extreme and untenable position. Were movements for women’s voting rights unjustified because they did not align with society’s then-values? Clearly not. Another way one might disagree would be to dispute the existence of a discriminatory culture, saying that other factors cause discrepancies in female employment, but that would be another topic for discussion. The most common way of disagreeing would be to say that the existence of laws preventing discrimination is more than enough. The reason a discriminatory culture may exist is that the
rules are not enforced adequately, but the fact that such laws exist provide the most reliable way to tackle discrimination. It is foolish to use government measures to change culture because culture is always changing and challenging to enforce. Some may even go further and say that state intervention to enforce culture may be undesirable and a violation of liberties. For example, censoring an old film or book because they may perpetuate classic gender stereotypes would be overkill. Alternatively, this argument is often combined to argue against the apparent existence of a discriminatory culture. Some may cite the lack of litigation in a particular field of work to say that the discrepancy in female employment is not due to discrimination, but rather, other factors. So long as anti-discrimination laws exist, that is more than enough. The German philosopher Karl Marx would strongly disagree with that statement. For all the failings of his other theories (especially communism), Marx made a very keen observation about the inefficacy of written laws. As he observed, equal political rights are worth fighting for, but they are of little value if people still treat you unequally. In his famous essay ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) he writes: “A state can liberate itself from a limitation without man himself being truly free of it.” In other words, political emancipation – freeing people from legal or political restrictions – does not free people from societal constraints. Marx wrote his essay at a time when recently-passed Prussian laws restricted the rights of Jews like himself. Although the Rhenish Parliament would later vote for the emancipation of Jews, the King vetoed the legislation. Marx’s essay argued that even if the King allowed laws to ensure Jewish emancipation, it would make no difference. It would not change the fact that a German Jew remained a second-class citizen. Why are laws so ineffective? The simple answer would be that they are human creations. Nobody is perfect, and neither are our creations. People can easily circumvent laws. For example, how can one prove discrimination when a Black person is paid less for doing the same job? The boss could argue that the differences in salaries are a result of gaps in performance and talent. Laws may also not be rigidly enforced. Rules against bullying may exist at school, but how effective are they if teachers turn a blind
