Liberty or Equality?
One of the issues of modern society is the apparent incompatibility between liberty and equality. Which, many philosophers want to know, is sovereign? Which is supreme?
Should we allow individual freedom to be encroached on insofar as we are able to establish better equality of conditions or outcomes or both? Or should inequalities of conditions or outcomes (or both) be allowed so that we may maximize individual freedom?
Many like Milton Friedman offer a largely empirical argument, emphasizing that a focus on equality over liberty amounts to a diminishment of both, whereas a focus on liberty over equality amounts to an increase of both. Or if not an increase of equality, at least an improvement of the overall conditions and outcomes among those in society, when liberty is the prevailing principle, not equality.
Set that consideration aside, whether it be true or false. Clearly, most recognize there is an inherent difficulty in finding some ideal compromise between liberty and equality in society — and that both are important. Moreover, when one reads much contemporary philosophy on the issue, the solutions on offer are often quite inadequate, to say the least.
I suggest the problem is run in circles because neither of these two principles are supreme, and the principle that is supreme, the principle that should be used in regulating liberty and equality, has been predominantly ignored. That principle is the principle of justice.
Justice is the criteria by which we should determine “how much” liberty and equality a society should have. And the simple answer is we should not pursue more liberty than justice allows (for then it is no longer liberty, but license), nor should we pursue more equality than justice demands. For example, “liberty” that harms other people or the larger community (pornography, abortion, etc.) should not be pursued. And related to equality, justice demands everyone has the external goods to which everyone has a natural right to – that is, the conditions necessary to lead a good human life. But not more than that (not everyone needs an iPhone 14, though everyone needs a just wage).
Here is the comment I made recently on freedom and what is necessary to keep it in check.
---------------
We need two things for a productive society. These are freedom to do what we want and morality to keep that freedom pointed to a constructive objective.
Eternity with God is the only valid objective if I am a Christian. All other goals are only constructive if they lead to that ultimate objective. Some of our dreams will be directly related to this supreme objective, while others are valid because they do not conflict with that objective but help us develop as a person seeking it.
This sounds like it could be a lot of work but let me give examples. Studying for a test or preparing for a performance such as an athletic event, a debate or a dramatic performance, having fun at a vacation spot, or visiting unique places all help develop me. But only if the result is a person more aware of what is necessary to get through life, reach the ultimate objective and help others achieve the same goal. God made humans thrive socially and seek earthly rewards through achievement and certain pleasures. All are conducive to a more productive person and one who will reach the ultimate objective. But only if these objectives are consistent with others achieving the goal of eternity. Our lives require a balance between the two.
Typing this comment is such an activity. Will it help me reach the objective of eternal life? I hope so. But more importantly, will it help others to achieve this objective? (I began to think of this as an essential objective while praying for others at Mass)
For most of history, society has restricted the objective of freedom and rationalized doing so as beneficial for all humanity. The Catholic Church was very guilty of this but was certainly not unique, as every society since the beginning of history has done the same. There has been part of Church policy; something called the Great Chain of Being, that essentially justified keeping 99% of the people in subservient positions. (I understand that the original purpose of this concept was to delineate various entities according to their nature but it evidentially did so within humans also) Plato's Republic outlined this with its emphasis on certain types of people.
Freedom only really broke out in England in the 1500s as Henry VIII could not provide an heir. So he rejected Catholicism to find another wife to produce an heir. This rejection of Catholicism set up two Protestant religions within England, and they eventually fought for dominance. Since neither side won authority, what happened, especially after the English Civil War of the 1650s, was that it was agreed to let both exist. This had the eventual effect of allowing more freedom for the ordinary person of both Protestant religions. But it did not do so for Catholics because their faith was forbidden.
This freedom led to increased economic activity at lower levels and allowed those at lower social levels to innovate and keep the rewards of their innovations. The epitome of this thinking happened in Pennsylvania, where Penn allowed all to thrive based on their efforts. He invited tens of thousands of poor German farmers to live in what was then known as the Poor Man's country. This freedom then permeated all the colonies that became the United States.
The result is that the modern world began in England and then accelerated in the colonies, especially those that became the United States. We accept technology today as a given without realizing it is the exception and not how lucky we are that it happened. It did not have to happen and it could disappear.
The obvious exception to freedom was slavery in the South due to the emergence of cotton as the most important crop in the US states. This is a clear example of the refusal to use morality to override freedom as a universal objective.
Nowhere in our current society are there examples of both freedom and morality used to check the privilege of freedom. What exists are some very blatant attempts to restrict freedom and an almost complete absence of morality. So we have gone in the United States from a society primarily based on liberty and morality to one absent of morality and increasingly restricting freedoms.
Justice is often substituted for morality. I prefer morality and find justice sometimes very hard to define. Many will say morality is hard to define too. But being raised Catholic has taught me a way of life that I believe is moral.
I commented on this the other day but differently than this OP lays it out.
Freedom is an existential part of our makeup as human being. Equality is not. In fact, inequality, not equality, is an existential part of being human. It is easy to define 'freedom' but almost impossible to define "equality."
Martin van Creveld wrote a book called "Equality: The Impossible Quest." Why impossible? Because no one can define equality because it has an endless number of meanings. Here are just a few popular ones: equality of body, equality of mind, economic equality and equality before the law, equality of opportunity, and political equality. There are several other versions of this term.
Dale Carnegie, who advocated for recognizing the dignity of each individual, said in his book that no matter who you are, every other person is better than you at something. That is a fundamental inequality for everyone in this world. Our DNA creates inequality in many things; our life experiences create inequality in many other things.
But the real issue is that some in our society have less economically, physically or socially than others. That has been true from day one everywhere in history. And we would not want to change that because the opposite would devastate all.
Those who point out this economic, physical and social inequality fail to point out that economic well-being, health and social acceptability have grown immensely over history. Why do they fail to point this out?
Freedom happened for the first time in history, starting in England and a little bit in Holland in the 16th century. Not complete freedom but enough so that the modern technical world emerged.
So there will always be inequality and we should celebrate it as long as we have freedom. When some power tries to limit freedom, chaos will return to this world. Remember, freedom only happened once, and it could disappear.
Now, freedom has to be limited or else the obvious will happen. People will destroy others if it is not limited. We will have mayhem, not a better society. So how should society limit freedom? See my comment from previously that I posted here after making this comment.