1 Becker

Jake Becker

Professor Alexander Izrailevsky

Philosophy 1120

9 April 2017

Freedom, Liberty, and Equality

The ideas of freedom, liberty, and equality have been a driving force in the modern

Western World. These ideas were catalyzed into philosophical, scientific, and political theories

during The Enlightenment, which allowed for a new conception of humanity to be understood.

This birth of reason gave way to institutions and thinkers that facilitated society towards

democratic ideals. These ideals sought to empower the individual towards new power and

insight, and consequentially society as a whole. The concepts of freedom, liberty, and equality

have played a vital role in this process of empowerment and have been for the most part

cohesive units. But upon closer examination, there is evidence suggesting that some

dissonance might be present. This paper will delve into these concepts: highlighting the

similarities and the differences between freedom, liberty, and equality, while also providing

philosophical, political, and social context. Through academic inquiry, we will be better able to

understand the ideas that have propelled our society to new heights of existence, as well as

how we can maintain the fundamental attributes of these principles in order to ensure the

mechanisms of freedom, liberty, and equality are properly calibrated within our culture.

Freedom and Liberty

Freedom and Liberty are two concepts that are embedded in our modern Western

culture, and they are often used synonymously with one another. While both concepts involve

the idea of free-will and are predicated upon autonomy, they each have slight distinctions that

make them unique. Freedom is defined as the power to act, speak or think as one wants without
 2 Becker

hindrance or restraint. Essentially, freedom is having the ability to choose. As for liberty, John

Stuart Mill defines liberty as the freedom to act and the absence of coercion.(1) On the surface,

these two concepts seem identical, but upon closer examination we can see that freedom is a

state of being, and liberty is having that state of being granted by external factors. These will be

the two definitional frameworks that we will use to represent freedom and liberty.

Political Inquiry: Equality

Equality is another concept that we often hear when we think of recent history. Equality

is defined as a state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. This ideal was

a driving force in the U.S. civil rights movements of the 20th century: Womens Rights. African-

American Rights, and Gay Rights. The overarching idea of equality has been apparent in our

cultural understanding, however, the application of equality has been met with disagreement.

The 3 main applications of equality are Equality of Rights, Equality of Opportunity, and Equality

of Outcome. These different applications of equality will be highlighted and defined in order to

better understand how equality functions within society, as well as how it correlates and

contrasts with freedom.

Equality of Rights

Equality of Rights is predicated upon the idea of being equal under the law, and that

individuals have an inalienable right to this form of equality. Equality of Rights is an application

of equality that was integral to the reformation of Western Society during the 18th century.

Thinkers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson promoted this concept.(2)

(3) As a culture, our value of Equality of Rights is paramount, given that it is emulated in one of

our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-

evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that amount these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 3 Becker

This excerpt lays out the idea that Equality of Rights are a necessary condition for Liberty and

the pursuit of Happiness. Thus we can identify that equality, in this sense, is integral to freedom

and liberty, because it allows for individuals in a society to be viewed equally by governance,

and this impartial disposition gives individuals the freedom and liberty to pursue their happiness

whatever it may be.

Equality of Opportunity

Equality of Opportunity is established upon the idea of removing arbitrary discrimination

and nepotism against individuals based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.

However, Equality of Opportunity should not be taken literally, because the equality of

opportunity fluctuates given the circumstance of each individual. For example, a child born in a

first world country will have a different opportunity than one born in a third world country.(4) The

factors surrounding these circumstances are out of the publics control, however, providing a

route for the individual to pursue their happiness without any unnecessary or arbitrary blockades

is plausible. Thus, Equality of Opportunity can be viewed as a mechanism which seeks to

reduce arbitrary structure(s), and this reduction grants the individual freedom and liberty to

pursue their interests. Therefore, we can see so far how Equality of Rights and Opportunity are

preconditions for freedom and liberty.

Equality of Outcome

Equality of Outcome is a philosophical concept that seeks to equalize the outcome of

individuals, whether it is through social, economic, or political means. The social support for this

mode of equality is predicated upon a morality that emphasizes the common good.(5) Politically,

Equality of Outcome is promoted as being a cure for the inequality that undermines democracy

and corrodes trust among fellow citizens.(6) Essentially, Equality of Outcome focuses on the

result of an action, seeking to equalize and augment the result to something more equitable. In

the United States, Equality of Outcome has become a controversial concept of equality,
 4 Becker

because of how its implementation could jeopardize freedom and liberty. As a result, Equality of

Outcome has been under constant criticism when compared to the more accepted version of

Equalityopportunity.

Equality of Opportunity & Equality of Outcome

Both of these concepts have been compared and contrasted endlessly because of their

distinct differentials regarding equality. In simple terms, Equality of Opportunity seeks to remove

and reduce structure, while Equality of Outcome seeks to regulate and control structures. These

means are necessary for both styles of equality to actualize their Telos opportunity and

outcome. These two terms are not inherently opposite to one another, because equality is a

complex idea, and the causality and judgment of equality requires both styles, however, both

types of equality can conflict with one another.(7) For example, pursuing and implementing

Equality of Opportunity can bring out an inequality of outcome, which is necessary and

acceptable if Equality of Opportunity is the goal. Conversely, Equality of Outcome can augment

and influence situations to where there is an inequality of opportunity. However, when

comparing both of these types of equality to freedom and liberty, Equality of Outcome is more

detrimental, because of how its actualization is predicated upon regulation and control of

outcome(s). Outcome is the result of an action or set of actions, and each outcome varies upon

the difference in action. Therefore, outcomes cannot be the same if each individual is

committing a different action, which has its subsequent result associated with its particular

action. This means that concepts and policies that choose to embody Equality of Outcome, run

the risk of jeopardizing individual autonomy and merit.

Merit is a concept that portrays the quality of good or bad based upon ability and skill.

This concept is integral to freedom and liberty because it allows for the causality of an

individuals actions to be the basis upon which their merit is defined. Thus, for an individual to be

properly judged and defined by their actions and subsequent results, the individual must have
 5 Becker

the freedom and autonomy to decide on their actions. Equality of Opportunity coincides with the

ideas of merit and freedom more than Equality of Outcome, because, Equality of Opportunity

seeks to make sure that merit and result remain untampered with, which allows for an individual

to be accurately valued by their actions and results.(8) This value of opportunity and freedom to

pursue ones interests, creates an inequality of outcome. This variance is because of the

inequality that come from comparing two different actions and their subsequently unequal

results, but this isn't necessarily negative. John Rawls, a proponent of Equality of Opportunity,

believed that economic and social inequalities can be justified if they benefit the most

disadvantaged members of society.(9) An example of this would be the socioeconomic prestige

a surgeon receives for their work in the emergency room.

Overall, this idea seeks to establish a social safety net as a result of individual

accomplishment. However, an over-emphasis of either type of equality can come into conflict

individual freedom and merit.(10) Thus, after comparing and contrasting the political philosophy

regarding freedom and lquality, we find a tentative harmony, but through comparing both types

of equality, we can see that Equality of Opportunity is more conducive to freedom and liberty.

Morality: Equality and Freedom

We have seen how multifaceted the idea of equality is and how its attributes interact

with one another and the greater social atmosphere. Also, we have seen how freedom and

liberty are integrated into our society as well. Now, we will attempt to see how these two

modalities relate to moral theory. The reason that both concepts, equality and freedom, have

garnered such intense observation and debate is based upon their moral underpinnings. The

morality associated with each of these concepts, whether its compassion for fellow man and the

greater good of equality, or the ability for one to have the freedom to pursue and actualize their

happiness/desires, has made understanding and applying these ideas of the utmost importance.

This importance is predicated upon a will to improve ourselves and our community. The moral
 6 Becker

and philosophical lens which we will be using to better understand these ideas is Friedrich

Nietzsches concept of Master and Slave Morality.

Master and Slave Morality

Nietzsche argued that two fundamental types of morality were embedded into our past

and subsequent present: Master and Slave. Master morality values virtue, strength, excellence,

and merit, while slave morality values humility, kindness, empathy, and equality. Master morality

is predicated upon nobility, which empowers man to judge good and evil through its relation to

himhe does not need approval. Thus, master morality creates value. Slave morality is reactive

to the morality created by the master(s), and is predicated upon devaluing the master values.

Therefore, slave morality is created as opposition to the values of master morality.

Master morality understands and legitimizes inequality, and this is based upon

Nietzsches historical association of master morality to the aristocratic values of Greek and

Roman societies.(11) Conversely, slave morality seeks to delegitimize inequality through its

morality, which according to Nietzsche is embodied within the Judeo-Christian value systems.

Therefore, we can see a juxtaposition of the concepts of freedom and equality within these two

types of morality: Freedom and Master, Slave and Equality.

Freedom and master morality are intertwined based upon their acceptance of individual

merit and the consequences resulting from that merit. Nietzsche believes that there is an

inherent difference between people. Therefore, the actions of different individuals will result in

different outcomes, which creates inequality. The value-making quality of master morality

accompanied with its unequal outcome(s) shows how freedom and the autonomy are

fundamental to Nietzsches idea of master morality.

 7 Becker

Equality, according to Nietzsche, gave slave morality justification for accepting their own

condition without hating themselves. This is because it allowed for those who embodied slave

morality to refuse the concept of inherent inequality. Thus, slave morality could attribute its lack

of success or happiness towards an arbitrary and unnatural system, not an inherent aspect of

reality. To escape this system, slave morality sought to demonize the values given by master

morality, and instead glorify the values that were inherent to them. Nietzsche is not opposed to

equality, for he sees the usefulness in some application. Rather, he is opposed to it being a

fundamental value of morality.(12) Therefore, through the philosophical and moral lens of

Nietzsche, we can see how Equality and Freedom are represented within two psychological

constructs, and how these embodiments affect society.

Conclusion: Equality and Freedom

The concepts of Equality and Freedom are integral to our moral perception of ourselves

and society. Upon closer examination, we can see that each concept has an array of

connotation and theory surrounding it. This vastness has allowed for many to speculate and

interpret the ideas of equality and freedom differently. The interaction between these two ideas

and their subsequent application has led to a intriguing discussion of how equality and freedom

coincide with one another. This paper has shown how the aspect of equality, especially when

associated with outcome, can jeopardize and corrode our cultures inherent values of freedom

and liberty. In regards to our current situation, Equality of Outcome and the slave morality

associated with it are seemingly more detrimental than Equality of Opportunity and master

morality. This is because we run the risk of sacrificing individual autonomy and development for

mass homogenization, which will deter our ability to see individual merit, and this sacrifice runs

the risk of corroding our society from the innovation and understanding each individual can

achieve and provide. In the words of Milton Friedman: A society that puts equality before
 8 Becker

freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of

both. Individuals should have the autonomy to make their own decisions and face the

consequences of those decisions. This allows for merit and subsequent judgment of that merit

to be accurately defined. However, an overemphasis of either the individual or society can

cause an imbalance within ourselves and our culture. Therefore, maintaining an equilibrium

between the two polarities, while maintaining the virtue of freedom, will ensure that our culture

will be able to facilitate individual growth as well as group liberation.

 9 Becker

Bibliography

1) Mill, J.S. (1869)., "Chapter I: Introductory", On Liberty

2)Powell, Jim. "John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property | Jim Powell." FEE.
Foundation for Economic Education, 01 Aug. 1996. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

3)Kant, Immanuel, and Hans Siegbert. Reiss. Kant: political writings. Cambridge: Cambridge U
Press, 2010. Print.

4 Milton Friedman; Rose D. Friedman (1980), Free to choose: a personal statement, Harcourt,
retrieved 2011-09-08

5.Cauthen, Kenneth. The passion for equality. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1987. Print.

6.Packer, George. "The Broken Contract ." Foreign Affairs (November 2011): 29-31.

7.Rooksby, Ed. "The complexity of equality | Ed Rooksby." The Guardian. Guardian News and
Media, 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

8.Barros, Ricardo Paes de. Measuring inequality of opportunities in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Washington DC: World Bank, 2009. Print. pg 32

9. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. N.p.: Belknap , 1971. Print. Pg 42-43.

10. Kenneth Cauthen (1987). "The Passion for Equality". Rowman & Littlefield. . (page 136)

11. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus , 1989. Print.
Pg 257

12.Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus , 1989. Print.
Pg 259