EQUALITYOFOPPORTUNITY

IAEthicsandPoliticalPhilosophyLentterm2018

Wewon’tbeashamedofsaying:wewantaninclusivesocietywithequalityofopportunityforall.

— JeremyCorbyn (2016)

OurPartyisthePartyofequalityofopportunity.—MargaretThatcher(1975)

APopularPrinciple

Planofthelectureseries

• Week5:VarietiesofEqualityofOpportunity

• Week6:VarietiesofEqualityofOpportunity

• Week7:Discrimination

• Week8:AffirmativeAction

EQUALITYOFOPPORTUNITYI:MERITOCRACY

DefiningMeritocracy• Other name: “Careers Open to Talents” (Rawls, A Theory ofJustice”)• Proponents: David Miller (‘Deserving Jobs’), George Sher(‘Qualifications, Fairness, and Desert’)• Meritocracy: Desirable jobs or positions should be offered tothe best-qualified applicants through competitions that no oneis excluded from entering.• Qualification: A qualification for a position X is an ability ordisposition that contributes positively to performing the taskinvolved in position X.• Focus of meritocracy: jobs and social positions

Meritocracy’sAppeal

“[X] is an equal opportunity employer. [...]Our selection criteria and procedures arefrequently reviewed to ensure thatindividuals are selected, promoted andtreated on the basis of their relevant meritsand abilities”

JustificationI:Efficiency• The efficiency argument: Giving jobs and positions to the bestqualified means that each job ends up being performed bythose who are most capable of performing them.

• This is a forward-looking justification.

• Problem: forward-looking or consequentialist justificationssometimes recommend hiring people who are not the bestqualified, against what meritocracy demands.

• Example: John and his wealthy father versus Jane the expertmechanic

JustificationII:RewardingPastPerformance

• The past-performance argument: Hiring the best qualified is away of rewarding people for their past performance.

• Thisisabackward-lookingjustification.

• Problem: it is possible to be the best qualified for a certain jobwithout having performed the job well in the past (Miller,‘Deserving Jobs’)

• Example: Paul the diligent surgeon versus Sarah the giftedsurgeon.

JustificationIII:RespectforAgency• The respect argument: “When we hire by merit, we abstractfrom all facts about the applicants except their ability toperform well at the relevant tasks. By thus concentrating ontheir ability to perform, we treat them as agents whosepurposeful acts are capable of making a difference in theworld.” (Sher, ‘Qualification, Fairness and Desert,’ p. 119-120;see also Mason).

• Problem 1: Is selecting according to qualifications the only wayof respecting agents? What about selecting according to need?

• Problem 2: The idea of respect may be too vague or formal todo any substantive ethical work here (Arneson)

JustificationIV:Desertandfairness• The fairness argument (David Miller):

(1) Fairness requires that people be given what they deserve.(2) People deserve to be rewarded in a way that is

proportional to the valuable contributions they make.(3) The best qualified would make the highest positive

contributions to the job-giving institution if they weregiven the job.

(4) So the best qualified is the person most likely to deservethe benefits involved in the job (from (2) and (3)).

(5) Because the best qualified will be more deserving of thejob’s benefit or salary, fairness requires giving them thejob (from (1) and (4)).

JustificationIV:Desertandfairness• The fairness argument (David Miller):

(2) People deserve to be rewarded in a way that isproportional to the valuable contributions they make.

• Problem: How much someone can contribute depends ontheir qualifications. But often, people don’t deserve theirqualifications.

So: Premise (2) seems false–if someone’s qualifications areundeserved, they do not deserve to be rewarded for whatthey contribute thanks to those qualifications.

Objection:TheUnfairnessofMeritocracy• TheUnfairnessObjection (BernardWilliams,JohnRawls):

In societies with significant social inequalities, people startout with unequal opportunities to acquire qualifications.So, in such societies, it seems unfair to reward people on thebasis of their qualifications, as meritocracy does.

• Example:BernardWilliams’sTheWarriorClassCase

EQUALITYOFOPPORTUNITY II:FAIREQUALITY

OFOPPORTUNITY(FEO)

DefiningFairEqualityofOpportunity(FEO)

• FairEqualityofOpportunitycombinestwoprinciples(Rawls):(1) Meritocracy:Desirablejobsorpositionsshouldbeofferedto

thebest-qualifiedapplicantsthroughcompetitionsthatnooneisexcludedfromentering.

(2) FairBackground:Accesstoqualificationsshouldnotbeinfluencedbyindividuals’socioeconomicbackground.

• The upshot of FEO: “Those with the same level of [natural]talent and ability, and the same willingness to use them, shouldhave the same prospects of success regardless of their initialplace in the social system” (Rawls, Theory of Justice)

FEO:SomeObservations• BenefitsofFEO:(a) Itgivesanimportantroletoqualificationsintheselectionof

candidates(likemeritocracy).(b) Itseemsfairerthanmeritocracy,becauseittriestonullifythe

influenceofundeservedsocialinequalitiesonaccesstoqualifications.

• Possiblepolicyrecommendations:Publicfundingforschooling,redistributivetaxation.

• TheIssueofPriority: WhichshouldtakepriorityinFEO—Meritocracy,orFairBackground?

TheFamilyObjection• Whatfamilyoneisbornintostronglyaffectstowhatextentonedevelopsqualifications.

• SoFEOmaydemandextremeregulationofthefamily,orevenabolishingthefamily.Thismayseemlikeanunacceptableinterferencewithindividualliberty.

• Possibleanswer:weshouldwelcomethisscepticismaboutthefamily(Plato;somestrandsoffeministphilosophy)

TheUnfairnessObjection(Revisited)• TheUnfairnessObjection: Theinfluenceofnaturaltalent.FEOallowsnaturaltalenttoinfluencethedistributionofqualifications,aswellasjobsandsocialpositions.Butnaturaltalentseemsjustasundeservedassocialbackground.• Answer1.ComplementFEOwithadifferentprinciple(Rawls)• Answer2.Arguethatthereisamorallysignificantdifferencebetweenbackgroundnaturalinequalitiesandbackgroundsocialinequalities.• Answer3.AbandonFEOinfavourofafairertheoryofequalityofopportunity(nextweek).

Thankyou!