Essay

Each of us is inherently conditioned into a particular way of life by our community and the politics that govern such a society. At any current time, the organization of political principles, such as democracy or distributive justice, has been a predetermined result. We blindly accept that our ancestors were correct and ignore the possibility of objections. Yet, this is a grave mistake, especially considering the fact that our lives and the way society is organized are so intertwined. This means “we cannot avoid thinking of our political practices as alterable, and even (if only in retrospect) as possible objects of choice” (Bird 3). To some, one of the “alterable” political practices of distributive justice, in Socialist Equality of Opportunity (EOP), may seem extreme. The word Socialism has developed into a “meaningless word” that serves as a synonym to tyranny (Orwell 4). Yet, a specific form of socialism, equality of opportunity, has many merits over common, currently practiced systems and should be considered as a legitimate ideal for distributive justice. To realize the aforementioned thesis it is important to first define equality of opportunity. Within the definition, many reasonable objections will surface, but through disputing common theories on distributive justice, it will be relatively simple to recognize the following: EOP is the most rational form of distributive justice given the inherent nature of society, it eliminates a vast number of inherent inequalities, and is the most efficient form of distributive justice if equality of opportunity can be granted. The task then is to adequately define Socialist EOP. This in itself, like defining most distributive justice schemes, is a complex matter. However, it may help to understand the core concept of distributive justice, before moving into what Socialist EOP defines as just. The core idea in distributive justice pertains to the allocation of goods, where goods can mean a variety of topics, including