Pros And Cons Of Strict Egalitarianism

Deviations from Strict Egalitarianism

Equality underlines most theories of justice, but deviations from strict equality of resources and welfare should occur where it benefits those worse off in society. It should also deviate to allow ensure freedom of choices and recognition of self ownership. The doctrine of sufficiency argues that the focus of justice should be about ensuring that each person has “enough” and that it should be “of no moral consequence whether some had more than others” (Frankfurt, 1987, p.21). Indeed, Frankfurt argues that the disdain towards inequality is entirely due to poor people not having enough money. People aren’t concerned about the differences in wealth between millionaires and billionaires. The key concern is fairness and increasing welfare. People consistently value economic fairness over economic equality when the two are in conflict (Starsans, Sheskin & Bloom, 2017). Likewise,
Equality of resources might mean that no one gets a pain killer if there isn’t enough to give one to everyone. If we used a medication that is needed to save someone’s life and it needs a minimum amount to achieve, then the doctrine of sufficiency would differ from a strict egalitarian framework. Because if equally sharing the medication means no one has enough to survive, then focusing on equality, will lead to more deaths, whereas the doctrine of sufficiency would ensure that some people are above the threshold. One major issue with the doctrine of sufficiency is that we don’t actually know what is enough. There is a difference in having enough to survive and having enough to be satisfied. Regardless, increasing sufficiency of persons often has a side effect of equalising opportunity and welfare. However as a theory of justice, it make little comment on the role of