Equality

werticalhorizon

Sep 22

Under discussion John Rawls, Theory of Justice (revised edition). Statements of Rawls in single inverted commas are not always direct quotes.

I will begin with egalitarianism, which I had already rejected as a viable equality. Here, in order to bring sacrality to Earth, humans will be given the status of deva but so, too, will be the 'fate' of lizards. Stubborn people like yours truly are rather 'jealous' of their distinguishment from lizards than to feel happy at the prospects of becoming deva. The egalitarian says, no you must be lizard … oops, deva. We will even decide for you so in the name of Rousseau; better acquiesce in our equality with your free will. Next.

When I first read that Rawls have found solution for justice yet equality, I was excited to learn of it. However, his theory 'justice as fairness' will either lead to justice (after first destroying logical equality),[1] or to egalitarian-esque equality based upon a small set of variables,[2] rather than absolute egalitarianism mocked in the previous paragraph. Rawls' work, then, reminded me of a lyric scribbled ages ago:

ہے اِس سراب کے بعد نئے افق کی تلاش

That new horizon I call logical equality. First, however, I will note that Rawls has reasonably attacked utilitarianism for rationalizing logical equality into identity of interests: a mean towards legislating for all. Originally, I did not find that his critique correct; however, he is absolutely right on this matter. The very reason I had decided to call uniqueness or difference an equality, rather than identity, was to avoid bureaucratic emphasis on turning what is logical into physiological in order to compartmentalize humanity. While creating a fraternity of Homo sapiens based upon logical equality I anticipate, that must not be a compartmentalization of species into various chunks.

Following are the notes, a history one might say, of how the preceding transpired.

2023-189:

Equality is a mathematical concept. Indeed the first Adam/Eve that came up with the concept may have hit upon it without reference to mathematics; however, when asked to demonstrate, reply was to the tune of right hand fingers equal left hand fingers.

In section 32, Rawls adds worth of liberty as a separate degree to equal liberty besides qualifying even that equal liberty. Clearly, one apple does not equal one orange does not equal one mango …. Really, Palau cannot take out the United States yet it exists. That existence is the natural equality between the two; regardless of how much yang despise yin, yang exists by virtue of reference to yin. There was no mountain till we saw valley – and vice versa. A land without women will not for long remain a land with men.[3]

Wallerstein had claimed that quota system favoring Black majority are wrongly seen as a night of knives. Yet in the Republic of South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation gave way to xenophobia. If we really desire to reconcile, quota systems are not the way to end systemic difference – they enshrine those differences. Instead of bureaucratizing it, what is required is to make the difference a fundamental equality (with cumulative property – e pluribus Unum). [I come to call it logical equality.]

Negative liberty – defined by Mill in his treatise on liberty – is another form of equality. In fact, since every opinion is bound to be khabar[4]– somewhat different than another's opinion – negative liberty is logical equality: each is different than other, therefore, translates into each is allowed to be different so long as one does not stop another from being different [except that the preemptor is an impartial judge in a court of law[5] as well as spontaneous self-defence eliminations, a natural equality].

Sidebar: Between JS Mill and I, the difference is that for him liberty is subordinate to utility, for me liberty is needed to bring into existence the notion of justice. [Rawls, however, places Mill in the liberal tradition with Locke and Kant, though without giving specific details, in his lecture "Basic Liberties and their Priority".]

2023-190:

Although some might be tempted to think that one lives by the creed of a philosopher or a prophet yet we rarely know all that such an authority has articulated, much less abide in it. There are various interpretations, several sects, and many egos involved, each desirous that they are considered the spiritual continuation of the authority. Out of one authority, thus, many rays shine forth and each Earth-dweller can partake of cogito but a few rays.

Auxiliary Definition: Whenever one has philosophically sound reason to believe that two concepts are distinct, one may, as an auxiliary to that reason, point out a circular definition by the way of a standard dixionary. Had been Metaphysical God and Oneness the same thing, the dixionary will have one entry describing them both. At times, such auxiliary definition will cause us to search for deeper philosophical distinxions. Before all, Nietzsche was a philologist.

Back to main subject. The error, then, turns out that one is usually ignorant of one being different than every single other being. If one wanted to protect one's own difference, one would have insisted on equal liberty for each human being – enlightenment, not veil of ignorance, is required. It is not merely religion where it is repugnant to accept an outsider 'as the proper interpreter of one's duties/obligations' (section 33); it is expandable to every aspect of life. Logical conclusion is Buddha.

However, philosophical beginning is Adam/Eve: the world is built for two. Once it is recognized and internalized as fundamental equality, we have created a fraternity as well. Although nationalism exploits individualism in this manner yet I am talking about a single commonwealth comprising all human beings. A state, moreover, needs at least one enemy to bolster its case for continued existence; the commonwealth will lack this aspect.

2023-191:

Logically, a ≠ b ≠ c … yet in a set of all alphabets, they acquire equal membership – {a, b, c, …, l, m, n, …, x, y, z}. However, when we put the mathematical concept in real world, we begin to wrestle with it in order to put ourselves in some limited fraternity at war with at least one other limited fraternity. The only distinxion needed is just and unjust, true and untrue. However, many people let go off these distinxions within in-group in the name of stability of the group, while paint out-group(s) wrong all the way.

Even if we think only upon us salvation will be bestowed that is rather absurd premise to start a war. Indeed, while in casus belli, this premise might be sated, actual reasons usually lie elsewhere – in materialistic desire.[6] We need to understand, however, that just as we do not want to be forced to a state of apostasy, others do not want that either. Just as we want to be different, even jealously guarding our values, so, too, others want to mind their own trade. We cannot claim distinguishment from others while denying that to others.

Thus, humans need to understand that being different is not a crime, for if it is, each human is a criminal. The historical equality – all humans are children (or faction) of Adam (ex Unum pluribus) – made us know what we millennia later understood through taxonomy. However, its merits have been eroded – considering here that it ever had the ability to forestall intra-species warfare – by bureaucratization. God had made tribes for the purpose of recognition; those totems we metamorphed into idols worthy to go into war for. What Iqbal called تازہ خدا, therefore, is centuries old – it only truly manifested once the Ottomans and the Kaisership lost.[7]

2023-194:

Rawls makes the categorical fallacy when taking vantage point of the cumulative liberty ('greatest equal liberty'), he claims that that's for the benefit of individual's liberty as well (for otherwise, he would conclude, it will create 'irregularity').

2023-195:

A problem of representativeness (as Professor Jervis will have it) obtains, therefore: self-reinforcing biases that majority can ostensively point at to criminalize certain (lack of) behavior as causing irregularity. Such fundamental biases are not checked by deliberate speed sanctioned by a court of law that at least half way is drawn from that very majority-influenced system – to paraphrase Doctor Harari.

Instead, in an ideal world, there will be just one law based upon negative liberty. Liberty of any given citizen will not be ascertained from the status of another citizen or from a cumulative liberty for all. Rather, for each citizen, we will have a separate binary set {0, 1}, where 0 signifies lack, and 1 presence, of liberty. Rawls might object there is lesser natural liberty for the children and the mentally-impaired. Indeed; yet that merely strengthens my argument for uniqueness.

Whereas in our non-ideal world it could be regarded that all laws are essentially reducible to negative liberty, it will be hard to defend in these terms, for the traditionalist and the Malthusians advocating against public nudity and siring two male children, respectively. JS Mill indeed makes a case in the name of future liberty of totality when the couple lacks wherewithal to support family. Yet it is too thin a ground to be used by Malthusians as the only criterion. Hence, each set of advocates claims it is 'natural' somehow to behave according to its precept, howsoever much the two parties (the traditional and the Malthusian) may be at odds otherwise.

2023-196:

Let us suppose, in an ideal state, the sole law is that one is at liberty to be fluid, given to change, evolution as long as that does not violate another's liberty. A perpetual consent thereto is problematic only when it provides for too narrow a liberty: there is allowance for moving from x to y but not to z – assuming that z is plausibly good, if not an absolute good.

2023-201,202:

We now have various types of equality. I will tabulate them as follows:

Natural	Impossibility of ontogenesis; involuntary action; self-defence
Historical	All humans are children (or faction) of Adam; cannot be banked upon to stop internecine fight between Abel and Cain
Logical	All are different or each is unique – requires negative liberty
Legal	All citizens are equal before the law; All Muslims are equal before Allah
(Bio)metrical	All is same, all is family – by the way, are you robot?
Mystical	This too shall pass; سب پانی کا بلبلہ

(Bio)metrical Equality: Before Snowden revelations, this type of equality had accepted, prima facie, Rawls as he spoke of reasonably just system enjoying voluntary consent. Indeed, Rawls further stipulates that liberty given up in return for participating and receiving benefits from such a system will be void ab initio if certain pertinent facts were withheld from the consenter, even if promise of consent was otherwise given free of coercion.

Once Snowden revelations occurred, theoretically we had a chance to become Zen Buddhists; in practice, it was fait accompli: we were already addicted. Rather than being a leitmotif, therefore, (Bio)metrical equality has become the convention / constitution into which we are born. Rather than obligations, it elicits natural duty from us unless we become mystics – something true for pre-internet society as well.

Further, our autonomy has been eroded by advertisements, screening of motion pictures outside cinema (roadside hoardings, for instance). States encourage its citizens to utilize internet and television for receiving education; to get information and to give information. The zeitgeist is thus unfavorable to maintain autonomy. Prior to realization of true stability, we have to find our uniqueness, and then, insist upon being different.

Cynical Equality: Everybody is egotist; everybody is looking for their own interests. However, I believe there can be impersonality and impartiality as well as unrequited affection; hence, cynical equality is false.

Noblesse Oblige: From Rawls' connotation to noblesse oblige, I reckoned that the monarch most of all was obliged not to become Guy Fawkes.[8] I call it regulatory inequality, which informs Rawls just society, though he will beg to differ. By regulatory is meant that each public office holder is given unique rights/obligations based on their designation: more rights mean more obligations as well. This answers Orwell's Animal Farm, or, what is known as nomenklatura problem.[9]

Rousseau and company had decided humanity needs a constitution different than monarchy. That, in theory, made everybody sovereign. However, they failed to publicize that with great power comes great responsibility. Whereas people continued to believe that say, robber barons are somebody else's – that is state's – problem yet after we assumed the liberal doctrine, they become everybody's problem. Previously, against unjust monarch was public obligated to agitate, otherwise only supererogatory action was called for, while the robber barons were indeed monarch's headache.[10]

2023-208:

Rawlsesque Equality: Eventually, Rawls says that greatest equal talent will enjoy greatest equal liberty in a just society. (Pages 92-93). Whereas his hypothetical contract presupposes culture – a fact that his device veil of ignorance cannot hide from the parties to the original position – it is state that comes out of the neural network deliberation process – if I may offer an analogy. A state that appropriates culture as mere contingency, and, to paraphrase Rawls, may or may not support academia or 'perfectionism' – pay stipends to Einstein so he may carry out his work uninterrupted. In my opinion, such parochial thinking will erode the cultural edifice supporting the state – only organization capable of enacting Rawls' theory.

Further, Rawls correctly argues that contemplating beautiful objects is one of the chief good. I believe, in his society, it will work out in negative form: not having to look at ugly objects is one of the chief good. It is because while the totalitarian has the obsessive propensity to turn everything identical, Rawls' society will fit things into a familiar small set within which differences will be possible. Assimilation to the average will no doubt warrant that the lowest denominator (slums) will not exist; it will also ensure the higher arts and architecture become instinct.

While the Big Brother may not edit Shakespeare, no more Shakespeares will be born – not necessarily due 'ingenics' but simply that such artistic endeavours will lose out to concerns with winning bread-and-butter. To a certain extent, being happy with less will be adopted. Rawls criticized that being a possibility in utilitarianism – where it will be probably due to collexion of capital in the hands of a 'frugal' clique or some oligarchs. In Rawls' society, its cause will be a lack of opportunities or capital available for the totality.

Family: [It is important to make a case for family as Confucius will argue for, esp., to avoid falling for (Bio)metrical equality.] Reconstructing Iqbal, "blood-relations as a basis of human unity" is rejected by Islam,[11] Rawls questions if family will be abolished as an institution eventually to bring about greater equality even if for the time being that is not required. (Page 448).[12]

There is, perhaps, irrationality in one's love for family.[13] Taking a leaf from evolutionary biology,[14] Rawls instead wants that human relations should be based upon reciprocity, even if, he points out, A might do his side of the contractual obligation, while B does not. Indeed, reciprocity despite that defect seems more rational than family, where members take for granted what others in that family do for them, and yet that situation continues as opposed to failure of a contract, where court of arbitration will be involved, at least A will be highly unlikely to commit to B again, while word-of-mouth will probably erode good will for B.

In family, then, effort, upon which Rawls places onus, is highly inefficient as compared to a system based upon reciprocity with the mechanisms just specified ensuring against lack of efficiency. Rawls, of course, subordinates efficiency to liberty yet 'eventually' that might not be the case.

In Rawls, we find that there was no silent ampersand in the background, no metaphysical God giving us rules, so on and so forth. Yet there was a beating heart, a father and a mother, irrationally smitten by their child. They were not thinking what this child will do for us in reciprocity for their love. It was that love that mediated by gratitude caused culture.[15] Not efficiency.

We have become superconscious about our species; there is no place left in social theory for feelings as they are experienced by the mind. The more emphasis is placed upon materialism the less will be left for spirit. If that leads to faster decay of non-legal trust in comparison to the previous eras, we must not be surprised. Shackled, we in a feedback loop that will continue till culture is no more; state will fall itself.

Ultimately, to quote Rawls (page 474): 'What a social system must not do … is to encourage propensities / aspirations that it is bound to repress / disappoint.'

[1] I call it regulatory inequality founded upon Rawls connotation to noblesse oblige.

[2] That is to take Rawls at face value.

[3] See also my 2020 Urdu story, "10" [Part of Notebook 12].

[4] See my log, "I am Capitan of a Sinking Ship" (2023).

[5] See also my abstract, "Sincerity" (2023).

[6] At times, in nominally sacred wars, even those mercenaries are found acceptable that do not subscribe to the religious views of that fighting side.

[7] And gave us origanaleries Hitler and Erdogan.

[8] Although Jacobean charge sheet read as much against Louis XVI yet they were partisans that could not of course have added that they had created facts on the ground that lead the monarch to conspire with fellow monarchs.

[9] See The Essential Wallerstein.

[10] Although liberal doctrine calls for impartial judges yet my emphasis on impartial judges leads to taking sovereignty back from public except for their natural equality: involuntary self-defence eliminations. The responsibility will be exercised by impartial judges as vice of God.

[11] Doctor Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, [ILQA, 2019], page 160.

[12] Following paragraphs are constructed today (2023-264) from notes taken on the advised date.

[13] Irrational, since Rawls, on page 418, uses this adjective for purely conscientious act.

[14] See work of George R. Price.

[15] Noted on the advised date: Islam enjoins that lower classes do not develop apathy for upper classes, upon which sympathy towards the former is strictly enjoined. If utilitarianism requires equal sympathy regardless of position in the society, its advocates seriously need to reconsider the doctrine. (Probably, utilitarian indeed expect as much since they have turned logical equality to identity of interests, like we are living in a society reported by Frazer.) Of altruistic souls, however, Rawls tells us that they are unworthy of evolutionary survival. Saints and Heroes!

Summer 2023

Text is not enhanced through 'artificial' intelligence.