Essay About Theories Of Social Inequality

Philosophical theories regarding social inequality could have many positive effects on future policies working on reversing the current state of inequality. Many of these theories could provide a basis for what policies should follow and how our society should be set up. Philosophical reasoning in relation to social inequality refers to theories of how society ought to be, versus how it actually is. Philosophers such as John Rawls and Charles Mills have provided information on the principles that policies should be based upon that would allow for a world and society that has less inequality.

Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, suggests that when choosing a certain policy or legislature, there must also be a chosen concept of justice that the laws should fit in accordance with.  Rawls argues that if this were the system used to create policies, the social structure would have less inequality and be more just. Additionally, this system would encourage equality and cooperation for all because of the principles that it follows (Rawls, 2009). The first principle of inequality according to Rawls is that there should be equality in assignments of basic rights and duties. Essentially, this means that in a just society, everyone in that society should have access to equal basic liberties. Rawls’ second principle refers to theories such as equality of opportunity. This principle allows for inequality to exist under the circumstances that it benefits the least advantaged of society according to the just savings principle and that the same positions are open to all, regardless of social position. Rawls provides support for the second principle in his discussion of societal cooperation and that the division of advantages should encourage everyone to cooperate in order to ensure a satisfactory life (Rawls, 2009).

Rawls maintains that utilitarianism is flawed in that it is only applicable in theory and no rational-minded person would with. Utilitarianism is “the greatest good for the greatest number,” (E. Westlund, Social Inequality, 15 February 2022). Rawls utilizes his theory of the veil of ignorance to disagree with utilitarian views being used to determine how to set up a society. Rawls’ veil of ignorance involves two mutually disinterested and rational actors that choose principles of justice by ignoring the facts of one’s own social condition. By doing this, Rawls reasons, a person would choose principles that will not give an advantage to any particular class but will choose to treat all fairly. Instead, Rawls proposes contractarian views to support his principles by arguing that a rational person would choose these principles to provide justice. Societal interests and the interests of the people in that society are not always agreed upon but have to work together to promote a just society.

Another philosopher that has contributed to the study of social inequality is Charles Mills, who proposed that in many philosophical works related to social inequality, there was a large reality that was not being considered. Mills wrote The Racial Contract to grapple with how inequality was affected by race, along with gender and class. Mills argues that many of their theories about how society ought to be ignored that the system of inequality was set up in such a way to allow racist principles and that these theories ignored the reality of social conditions concerning ethics.

Mills proposes another theory of a “domination contract,” in which gender, class, and race are considered as part of contract theories. He argues that gender, class, and race have been repeatedly ignored and that there are groups that have been continually dominated and have not been made part of the ‘contract,’ as one would think with contract theory(Mills,2017). Mills talks about how society is shaped by the privileged in each of these cases and that the disadvantaged of each of these groups are ignored. Mills provides evidence that when social contracts have existed, there have been subordinate groups. Essentially, there is equality when looking at specific parts of certain groups, but that does not change that there are large parts of every group that are still being oppressed due to their social conditions, whether that be race, class, or gender.

Mills’ article makes a large revision to Rawls’ proposal of the veil of ignorance. He proposes that instead of ignoring the inequality and choosing based solely on rationality, to instead consider the measures a member of a subordinated group would want to be taken to truly encourage and create an equal society. Mills states that, “an ideal society with no history of racial or any other kind of injustice is not a choice option,” when talking about his revised form of a veil of ignorance. Mills proposes that factors such as race, class, and gender need to be considered when creating a just society, otherwise subordination will continue to occur.

Rawls’ and Mills' arguments seem to argue for equality vs. equity, respectively. Rawls argues that by ignoring the differences among social conditions, just policies will be put into place because one group will not be favored over the other. Mills argues that because certain groups have been subordinated for so long, this has to be considered to have a just society. Although both philosophers based their ideas on social contract theories, they came up with very different ideas and outcomes. Mills agrees that there should be equal access to basic rights and opportunities for everyone to have equal rights, however, he goes further to explain how policies could differ based on the social conditions a person has. While Rawls would rather ignore these social conditions, Mills argues that facing these conditions head-on is essential to having a just society.

When reading about these theories, I read Rawls’ article first. I found that a lot of what he was saying made sense and that I agreed with his principles. Building a society around a concept of justice would, in theory, lessen inequality in that society. The idea of a veil of ignorance reminded me of the idea of ‘colorblindness’ as well, which is where I kind of started doubting that theory. Although it would be nice if policies were created in a way that allowed for the same advantages for everyone, this is unrealistic. I feel like this is what legislators attempt to do currently, which provides evidence that this theory does not work in practice.

However, Mills’ theory provides an approach that is more likely to truly lessen social inequality in practice but is also harder to apply to policies in a way that can be done. For one, this theory would involve being extremely subjective, which is what the original veil of ignorance was trying to avoid. Mills argues that to eradicate social inequality, we have to face these issues head-on, which I agree with, however, it is hard to do so in a widely agreed upon manner. It is also hard to make policies that allocate certain resources in different ways to different groups of people. When we talked about Mills’ argument, it reminded me of the argument for slavery reparations and how widely controversial that has become. Although it isn’t the exact same, it is difficult to make legislation that provides advantages to certain groups that would encourage an equitable society.

Another thought I had when reading Mills’ article was our class discussion of wealth inequality as well as our discussion of The Color of Law. Both of these discussions touched on how these inequalities started as a result of policies put into place and even after the policies were taken away, they still have a large effect on how our society is today. By this reasoning, in order to truly reverse the policy, another one needs to be put into place that would counter the effects of the old policies. As Mills points out, there have been subordinate groups in cases of class, gender, and race due to the policies put into place years ago. Although these policies are no longer in place, it would be nearly impossible to argue that there are not still groups that are experiencing the impacts of those policies. A big part of this for me was talking about wealth inequality. For people of color, they are at a disproportionate disadvantage because of years of a lack of income, lack of ability to be a homeowner, and other policies that came from racism and segregation. This is something that cannot be ignored, and as Mills points out, should not be ignored when it comes to making policies.

There are many parts of both Rawls’ and Mills’ philosophical arguments that could, and probably should, be brought into policy-making related to social inequality. Both philosophers bring up many points that should be considered when assessing if a policy will be helpful in contributing to a more just society.