ABSTRACT
There are many different philosophical ideas about the moral value of equality, such as democracy in which all citizens have equal voting and citizenship rights, or social and economic equality that guarantees a minimal living standard and educational opportunities for all. One notion of equality holds that all persons are entitled to the same universal rights and human dignity regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or social class. From a purely historical viewpoint, there has been a radical expansion of the idea of human equality in the modern era, just as there have been revolutionary changes in science, technology and economic systems. Plato had no real concept of equal political or civil rights, nor did any of the other ancient philosophers, and it was only more modern theorists like John Locke who posited that every person was equal in the rational faculties and in possessing the natural rights to life, liberty and property. Ideas about equal social and economic rights came later, and are hardly universal even in the present-day world, and Karl Marx was probably the most famous radical philosopher who demanded equal social, political and economic power for the working class.
What is the moral value of equality? Answer this question with reference to Locke, Plato, and Marx.
Over many centuries, the moral value of equality has expanded greatly to include universal human rights and equal citizenship for all, regardless of gender, race, religion or social class. Starting with the Industrial Revolution and the writings of Karl Marx and other socialists, it broadened even further to include social and economic equality, the welfare state, the rights of workers to form labor unions and the duty of the state to improve living standards. These ideas were largely unknown in the time of Plato and would have been considered quite radical in the era of John Locke, but over time there has been a revolution in the meaning of the moral value of equality. Democracy is an old idea, for but was hardly put into practice anywhere on earth before the 19th and 20th Centuries, and even the Athenian democracy that Plato opposed would be a very limited one by contemporary standards. Voting and citizenship rights were limited to male property owners, while slavery and other types of servitude still existed, and indeed continued in many parts of the world well into the 20th Century.
For most of history, the ‘normal’ type of government was monarchy or aristocracy, in which the common people had no political power and human rights did not exist. It goes without saying that there was no social or economic equality in most times and places, and most assuredly the working class was not in control of the system as Karl Marx proposed under socialism. For that matter, no working class existed for most of history, at least not in the Marxist since, because economies were based on agriculture and the masses of people were relegated to the lower castes of peasants, serfs and slaves. Only in an urban, industrial economy of the type that is common today but was still rare even in the 19th Century was it even possible to imagine a working class that would also be struggling for political and economic power. This new type of system was still in its infancy even in England in the 17th Century, when John Locke wrote in opposition to absolute monarchies and asserted that all persons had an equal right to life, liberty and property. Locke’s ideas about equal rights for all existed long before the reality, and were not even extended to all white males in the U.S., Britain and other Western nations until the 19th Century, and much later than that for women and minority groups.
Plato was never a believer in democracy, not even of the very limited version that existed in Athens 2,500 years ago, and he had no concept of universal human rights or social, economic or political equality for all. No one in his time did, or indeed for many centuries thereafter. Plato thought that the ideal society should have a class of Guardians or philosopher kinds, trained from childhood in the art of rule, whose only motivation would be the common good rather than greed, lust or personal power. He had no faith that the masses could benefit from this type of education, however, but expected them to be slave-like, narrow and self-interested, and care mostly about physical pleasures and their own material needs (Morgan, 2011, p. 78). Citizens in his Republic would not be treated equally, but according to their station in life and position in the hierarchy. Soldiers would be expected to do their duty, fight courageously and obey orders, while the masses would be forced to control their animal-like behavior and passions, for the good of the entire society. Guardians would not be allowed to own property or collect lavish salaries, but to serve only the public good. Unusually for an ancient philosopher, Plato would also have permitted women to join their ranks. Their education would teach them to cultivate reason, science and philosophy, as well as ideas about God and the immortal soul which Plato did not believe the lower orders would be able to comprehend. He also doubted that they should be taught the ancient myths and legends about gods and heroes, which were not rational and often set bad examples for human conduct.
John Locke was writing at the dawn of the industrial revolution in England, long before there was even a world to describe capitalism. His most famous work, the Second Treatise on Government, was written to justify the overthrow of the absolute monarchy of the Stuarts in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution established the liberal-Whig principle that the people were sovereign rather than the king and they were represented by Parliament, which had the power to remove or replace the monarchs. In addition, he postulated a state of nature in which all persons were rational beings, “equal and independent”, and fully in possession of their natural rights “life, health, liberty” and property (Locke Chapter 2). At some point, they all contracted together to create laws, governments and civil society, but they still had the freedom to alter, replace or overthrow these if their rights were violated. Governments could exist only if they respected the equal rights of all, and the “liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact” (Locke Chapter 4). It was many centuries before Locke’s theories of natural rights evolved into universal human rights that applied to all regardless of color, gender or social class. Subject peoples of the Western empires in Asia, Africa and the Americas were hardly granted any rights, while in the U.S. blacks remained in slavery until 1865 and Native Americans were almost totally exterminated. For most of history, even in supposedly democratic nations, "duties, rights, and liberties have routinely been assigned on a racially differentiated basis” (Mills, 1997, p.93). In addition, there were also huge distinctions in wealth, incomes and educational opportunities in all capitalist countries, with nonwhite minorities usually found at the very bottom of the economic ladder.
Karl Marx did regard capitalism as superior to all socioeconomic forms that had existed in the past, such as slavery and feudalism, which is why he vehemently supported the North over the South in the U.S. Civil War, for example. At the same time, he also regarded capitalism as highly exploitive of the industrial workers (proletariat) and prone to cycles of boom and bust. He predicted that at some point in the future the system would collapse and that the working class would take over the means of production. Under socialism, all class distinctions would be abolished in favor of a new system of social, political and economic equality for all (Marx and Engels 1848). Marx was well aware that capitalism had also revolutionized the world and created new forms of industry, transportation and communication that had never been seen before, as well as new social classes. Yet the benefits were hardly being extended equally to all members of society, and in the industrial cities of the 19th Century “the wages earned by laborers left families on the brink of beggary” (Applerouth and Edles, 2010, p. 20). Older classes like the aristocracy, small farmers and artisans were gradually disappearing, but class struggle was always the “prime mover of history” and would continue until capitalism was overthrown in a proletarian revolution (Applelrouth and Edles, p. 22). Then the workers would use industry and the new developments in science and technology for the benefit of all humanity.
As a moral value and philosophical principle, the meaning of equality has expanded tremendously over time, particularly in the modern era. For most of history, human beings were regarded as naturally unequal, and there was no idea of universal political, social and economic rights that applied equally to all. Plato advocated an authoritarian type of government, in which the classes and castes would be organized on the basis of hierarchy rather than equality. This has been the norm throughout most of human history, even if the kings, dictators and aristocrats were not exactly philosopher kings. Mostly the governed in their own interests and that of the elite classes of society, more or less on the basis of might makes right. Only in modern times have philosophers (starting with Locke) seriously suggested that all human beings were rational and equal or that they all had the same natural rights. Even when such ideas even existed at all, it took many centuries for them to have any effect on reality, and in fact they are hardly applied equally everywhere in the world today. Only in the 19th and 20th Centuries have ideas of social and economic equality gained a serious hearing, and in the long timespan from Plato to John Locke, they do not seem to have received any serious consideration. Karl Marx was hardly the first or only philosopher to demand social, economic and political equality for the laboring classes of society, although he was probably the most famous, simply because so many revolutions were made in his name. To be sure, those revolutions ended up creating regimes that were still highly authoritarian and lacking in real human equality of any kind, so much so that Marx probably would not even have recognized most of the revolutionary governments that claimed to be Marxist.
REFERENCES
Appelrouth, S. and L.D. Edles (2010). Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings, 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications.
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Project Gutenberg.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gutenberg.org%2Ffiles%2F7370%2F7370-h%2F7370-h.htm&ei=I02PUNHIFIb88QSPuoCQBQ&usg=AFQjCNH2Y5ORetHD1MsvIWr8DxnktcQKew&sig2=O71FTMIbGaVhnbFiC9_j0Q
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1848). The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Mills, C. W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press.
Morgan, M.L. (2011). “Plato’s Republic”, in Classics of Moral and Political Theory, 5th Edition. Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 75-251.
Tiel, J. (2012). Philosophy of Human Nature. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
