The Elusive Ideal: Is True Equality Ever Possible?
The ideal of equality is the bedrock of modern civilization, a moral thunderclap echoing through history from the French Revolution to contemporary human rights movements. We champion the phrase "all men are created equal," yet a glance at our polarized, radically unequal world suggests a profound disconnect between aspiration and reality. The debate isn't whether we should strive for more fairness, most agree we should but whether true equality is genuinely achievable, or if it is merely an unattainable ideal constantly receding as we approach it.
To tackle this, we must first distinguish between its forms: equality before the law (a civic necessity), equality of opportunity (the chance to succeed), and equality of outcome (a final state of equivalent well-being and resources). This post focuses on the latter, the most ambitious and contested form, arguing that while a noble aspiration and moral necessity, true, absolute equality remains an inherently unattainable ideal due to the fundamental, irreconcilable conflicts between nature, freedom, and human desire.
The Philosophical Case For True Equality
The most compelling argument for True Equality rests on a foundation of inherent moral worth. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argue that all human beings possess an equal, absolute dignity. If our fundamental value as persons is equal, shouldn't our resultant access to well-being and freedom also reflect that equivalence?
This perspective is formalized in the influential work of John Rawls. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls asks us to imagine designing a society from behind a "Veil of Ignorance”. Unaware of our own talents, class, race, or gender, he argues that rational people would choose principles guaranteeing a high degree of equality. They would prioritize:
-Equal Basic Liberties: Maximum freedom compatible with the same freedom for others.
-The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are only permissible if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls's framework is profoundly egalitarian. It suggests that since natural talents are "arbitrary from a moral point of view," their rewards must be channelled to elevate the overall societal floor. In this view, True Equality, defined not as perfect sameness, but as a just, well-ordered state where the difference between the top and bottom is morally constrained, is not only possible but the very definition of a just society.
The Philosophical Case Against True Equality
Despite the moral beauty of the egalitarian ideal, its practical realization confronts harsh realities rooted in nature and liberty. The case against true equality hinges on two main forces: inherent human differences and the conflict with individual freedom.
A. The Reality of Variance
Even if we were to achieve perfectly equal conditions at birth—equal nutrition, education, and resources—the outcomes would immediately diverge. Individuals possess fundamental differences in aptitude, drive, temperament, and physical capacity.
-Differences in Effort and Talent: Is it just to negate the rewards earned by an individual who chooses to work 80 hours a week developing a difficult, valuable skill (e.g., surgery) versus someone who chooses a path demanding less effort and output? True Equality of outcome risks penalizing merit and diligence, leading to universal stagnation and resentment.
-The Unmeasurable Self: Furthermore, equality of outcome requires measuring subjective happiness, fulfilment, and satisfaction. Since human desires are infinitely varied and personal, identical inputs will always produce wildly different results. For one person, a small cabin in the woods is perfect fulfilment; for another, it is deprivation. How can a system deliver "equal satisfaction" when satisfaction itself is relative?
B. The Conflict with Liberty
Perhaps the most potent philosophical objection comes from the libertarian tradition, articulated by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick argues that any patterned distribution of wealth, including equality can only be maintained by violating individual liberty.
His famous assertion is that "Liberty upsets patterns."
Imagine a perfectly equal distribution of wealth on Monday. If, on Tuesday, a few people freely choose to spend their money to see a particularly talented sports star, and that star freely accepts the payments, the initial pattern of equality is immediately disrupted. To restore the pattern, the state must constantly intervene, taxing, confiscating, and redistributing, which, in Nozick’s view, amounts to forced labour and an unacceptable infringement on individual rights.
Nozick argues that people have an entitlement to their legitimately acquired holdings. To force redistribution for the sake of an equal pattern, therefore, is profoundly unjust. True equality, in this light, requires a level of totalitarian state control that destroys the very freedom and dignity the original ideal sought to preserve.
Practical and Societal Hurdles
Beyond the philosophical tension, practical reality throws up near-insurmountable obstacles to True Equality.
-The Power Structure Paradox: Equality is not just about wealth; it is about power. Those who benefit from the existing unequal distribution, politicians, oligarchs, established elites, have the greatest leverage to resist genuine structural change. Achieving True Equality would require those in power to voluntarily dismantle their own privileges, an act history shows is exceedingly rare without violent upheaval.
-The Dynamic Nature of Resources: The global economy is a dynamic, shifting entity. Resources are always in motion. Any state that achieves perfect equality one morning would find itself unequal by lunchtime simply due to human action: a good investment, a bad decision, a personal gift, or a stroke of bad luck. The system required to stop this "entropy" of equality would necessarily be dictatorial and would crush individual economic agency.
Final Thoughts
Where does this leave us? The debate reveals that true equality, defined as a static, perfect, and absolute equivalence of outcome, is a philosophical chimera. It stands in direct, irreconcilable conflict with fundamental human traits: the desire for liberty, the reality of differential effort and talent, and the subjective nature of human needs.
However, recognizing its impossibility does not absolve us of the moral imperative to strive for justice. The ideal of true equality serves a crucial function: it is the North Star that constantly pulls civilization away from barbarity and massive, crushing inequality.
The achievable goal must therefore be shifted from absolute equality of outcome to maximizing equality of opportunity and establishing a sufficient minimum for all. We must build societies where:
1-Every person has genuine, equal access to quality education, healthcare, and civic participation.
2-No person, regardless of their position in the economic hierarchy, falls below a dignified and sustainable standard of living.
We may never reach the peak of true equality, but the strenuous climb toward it is what defines a moral and just society. The work is not to eliminate difference, but to ensure that difference does not translate into catastrophic, life-limiting disadvantage.