"Why Liberals Should Care About Equality" Ronald Dworkin

1.   Note that Dworkin divides liberalism into two main branches -- liberalism based on neutrality and liberalism centred on equality. What is the difference between the two?

2.   The central tenet of equality-based liberalism is expressed as follows: "[The government] must impose no sacrifice or constraint on any citizen in virtue of an argument that the citizen could not accept without abandoning his sense of his equal worth." How does this allow the liberal to respond to issues of personal morality (such as bans on homosexuality or establishment of religion)?

3.   How does the principle above map onto the economic arena? Is this convincing?

4.   What is meant by "equality of result"? How is this different from what Dworkin recommends?

5.   Explain how Dworkin goes about calculating the amount of resources people get. (This is the part dealing with differential ‘social resources’.) Why might you think that the market could do this for you? Why does Dworkin ultimately reject complete reliance on the market?

6.   Dworkin rejects the straightforward use of the market to calculate social resources and replaces it by a system that requires the balancing of two conflicting principles. What are they? Why are they in conflict?

7.   Dworkin thinks that in the US, any plausible interpretation of his system will require greater welfare measures. What does he say to critics who point out the existence of current levels of abuse and fraud? Is his response reasonable? Why or why not?

8.   The first part of the paper deals with establishing the legitimacy of an equality-based liberalism. The remainder of the paper goes on to address the issue of maintaining equality even if this results in damage to the overall economy (as claimed by people like Friedman).

9.   One might try to justify reductions in welfare by claiming them to be in the interests of the poor. This argument has been called ‘trickle down economics’ – cuts in programs are made in order to revive the economy, the result of which will be more jobs and money for the poor. Why does Dworkin reject this argument?

10.   There is another strategy that might be used to justify cuts. One might acknowledge that the poor will suffer but maintain that they have moral obligations to make such sacrifices. (Dworkin gives the example of drafting young men into the military in times of war as an example of this.) There are two arguments here. What are they? Why does Dworkin think that both fail to establish grounds for such a level of sacrifice by the poor?

Comment Questions

1.   Take one of the arguments for cutting welfare provisions – trickle-down economics, or one of the two sacrifice arguments – and offer a defence. After doing so, decide which side has the stronger argument and give reasons.

2.   Dworkin maintains that the central tenet of equality-based liberalism keeps the government out of ‘private morality’ (such as sexual orientation or religious matters). How extensive is this claim? Does it mean the state should not challenge anyone’s "equal worth"? If they shouldn’t, a problem arises; it seems that there are some life choices that the state shouldn’t treat as being equally worthy. For example, does this mean that the state cannot challenge racist, sexist views (because to do so would damage the ‘equal worth’ of sexists and racists)?

If you think that this is a problem, can it be resolved? If so, how? If not, where has Dworkin gone wrong and how can it be fixed? If you think that the state shouldn’t get involved in such matters, justify your claim. (For example, you need to say why anti-drug education is wrong, why teaching toleration in schools is wrong, why discrimination in schools and businesses should be okay, etc.)