To what extent is there tension between liberalism and the principle of equality?

Liberalism is the orthodox challenging position that believes in power to the people giving reference to the term ‘Free men’ where liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism in Europe replaced with a growth of a ‘Market’ and a capitalist society. Royalty was at the time supposedly chosen by god ‘Absolutism’ but people began to question the power of the king (Glorious and French revolutions). The central theme of the liberal ideology is a commitment to the individual and a society that entices the desire of individuals to fulfil their potential enjoying maximum possible freedom within a like freedom for all. Equality refers to being treated equally and of identical moral worth, however there are diverse types that branch from this.

Both Modern and Classical Liberals support three types of equality. Individualism implies a commitment to ‘foundational equality’ that feels that human beings should be ‘born’ equally in the sense that all individuals are of equal moral value gaining natural or human rights. The second type of equality is ‘formal equality’ ideas concealing that we should all have the same formal status. Largely in terms of rights and entitlements it disapproves social privileges that are given to some and denied to others due to ‘irrational factors’ such as race & gender, creating the essence of ‘difference blind’. Non-legal factors should be discarded during process of legal decision making to exemplify this making an assumption in court without concrete evidence. One person’s vote is off equal value to another disregarding someone’s class.

The third type of equality that liberals pay close attention too is the ‘equality of opportunity’ each person or individual should have the same chance to rise or fall in society being a successful individual or failure as long as there is a fair foundation laid, than the ‘game of life’ can be competed on an even playing field, moderns emphasise that everybody should have the basic foundations set, then its down to us. This is not suggesting we should have the same ‘equality of outcome’- getting the same out of society but we should all have equal chance to gain what we are ‘due’.

Different people uphold mixed talents and abilities and some are more wiling to have a greater work ethic than others yet it is dependant greatly on the fact of putting this ability into practice and gaining our reward or merit that we deserve. This generates the implication that all individuals should be able to develop their unequal skills. This discovers the belief in a meritocratic society or ‘meritocracy’ this reflects a society that social position is determined by ability and effort, yet there is a unequal distribution of talent along with application, this can be caused due to affluence and natural social position. This is viewed as just as individuals are not judged by gender or race but by their skills and incentives to work.

Tension can be caused in the liberal ideology. There is a distinctive line that is drawn between the modern lib’s and classical lib’s. They both feel that the three types of equality spoken before equate to social equality. However Classicals support a pure meritocratic society in which it is down to us whether we succeed or fail; we either ‘sink or swim’. They do not show sympathy to those whose talents are flawed. They feel there should be a ‘minimal state’ where there is no government influence. We have to be self-reliant if not than ‘the drunk in the gutter is where he belongs’ only ‘heaven helps those who help themselves’. Herbert Spencer drew upon ideas of Charles Darwin he applied his ideas into society; the process of ‘natural selection’ decides which individuals are a part of ‘the survival of the fittest’. Ones who survive rise to the top while less fit fall to bottom, inequalities of wealth etc are natural, government shouldn’t interfere with this.

Yet on the other hand modern liberals have an opposing approach they believe in positive freedom. T.H.Green described the free market as a catalyst to poverty and serious riches; life chances of some became blighted. He disagreed with capitals that feel our nature is self-seeking he believed in notion of ‘altruism’- people do have sympathy for one another. Along with this positive freedom also emerged as we can help each other achieve some kind of potential, this shows that not everyone had the chance to fulfil it, equality was scarce for some. Positive freedom therefore decreases inequality, only way to do this is with an ‘enabling state’ were there is help and interference via the government. Among the twentieth century we see the introduction of social welfare (Social Liberalism): where government tried to provide welfare support for citizens. This included social security, education, health and standard housing conditions. Modern liberals defend welfarism on the basis of equality of opportunity- if people are disadvantaged then welfare state should intervene creating equal or more equal life chances (social rights).

The Beveridge report was published stating that we should get rid off the ‘five giants’ want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The state should be there from ‘cradle to grave’. J.Rawls believed in ‘relative social equality’ that suggests the gap between the rich and the poor should be narrowed to create a ‘fair society’ yet their should still be an incentive for the individual to be a success, inequality itself should be an incentive to work. Overall as you can see both liberalist groups agree on three forms of equality however the way in which these principles are put into a society is in differ from one another, Classicals take a stricter self reliant approach yet moderns feel as if support should be granted to ensure everybody has at least an equal life chance.