Social Justice

Chapter 4 turns to normative political philosophy and introduces and defends the liberal egalitarian framework that provides the normative basis for assessments of policies that aim to promote social cohesion in diverse liberal democracies. Apart from the basic liberties, this framework includes a concern for equality, where a distinction between equality of opportunity and luck egalitarianism is introduced, and versions of each are developed, and it is pointed out that both these egalitarian theories can be used to support the conclusions about immigration and integration policies that are developed in the book. It is also argued that both theories should be sensitive to inequality of religious and cultural opportunities and that the concern for equality sometimes speaks in favour of multicultural policies.

Genetic advantage and equality of opportunity in education: Two definitions and an empirical application

The literature of Equality of Opportunity (EOp) has long acknowledged the existence of 'talents', 'innate ability' or 'genetic ability'. Nonetheless, attempts to explicitly incorporate a measure of innate ability in the quantification of EOp have been rare. On the other hand, the literature of social-science genetics has found credible genetic-based components of EOp, without an explicit quantification of overall EOp. In addition, there exists prevalent disagreement within both kinds of literature on whether innate ability should be perceived as a fair or unfair source of advantage. This paper proposes to quantify EOp while explicitly including a genetic-based measure of innate ability. It proposes two formal definitions of EOp that draw on both stances regarding the compensation of innate ability. Novel testable implications are derived. The educational attainment polygenic index is used as a measure of innate ability while correcting for genetic nurture and accounting for the correlation between genes and other circumstances. An empirical application in the US Health and Retirement Study finds that the share of inequality of opportunity is 26% under the view that genetic differences are unfair sources of advantage and 21% otherwise. A comparative analysis over cohorts reveals that the trend in EOp depends on the definition adopted; if genetic advantage is a fair source of inequality then EOp has improved; the opposite holds if one considers genetic advantage an unfair source of inequality. These results highlight the importance of accounting for genetic differences in the EOp framework.

Introduction

Sport as a global phenomenon is gaining a cultural and social centrality within countries in different ways and varying pace. Allen Guttmann (1978) defines modern sports as reflecting secularism, equality of opportunity, bureaucratic organization, specialization of roles, rationalization, quantification, and a quest for records. Sports may also be defined in more invested terms of what it does to a society, culture, politics, and economy and how it impacts social relations and economic landscape. Sports has an emancipatory potential that is realized in various ways. A multidimensional perspective on sports allows us to understand in microcosm the operation of embedded forces of patriarchy and capitalism, and of power and resistance in society....

Meritology versus meritocracy as a factor of culturalization

Currently, in the socio-cultural system, as well as in the educational one, some ideologies based on merit are elaborated: the ideology of selection, of a liberal nature, and the ideology of the refusal of selection, of a democratic nature. Discussions on meritology are part of socio-cultural issues and are seen as a symptom of democratization and equalization of opportunities for socio-cultural ascension. The essence of the ideal of meritology is that if everyone has equal chances, then the winners deserve their success. In the modern school, everything must be articulated in the basis of equality and merit. Meritocracy and meritology are principles of justice. The main concern of meritology involves a series of beliefs: belief in education and in justice, and as a result, in non-discrimination. Meritology provides the chance for the student to demonstrate his abilities. Today, the school faces a series of problems that it must face from a socio-cultural perspective. When we talk about equal opportunities for all students, this does not mean that everyone is equal, but that they can strive and compete in all social positions based on equal opportunities. Merit selection and acceptance of merit-based inequality presupposes, in fact, a real equality of opportunity.

Beyond equality of opportunity: from 'common sense' to 'good sense'

This article addresses the Labour Party's apparent inability to capitalise on the ready availability of good, progressive ideas. It suggests the key is to be found in the idea that the Labour Party no longer represents working-class people, a disjunction that can be best understood using Gramsci's distinction between 'common sense' and 'good sense'. Good sense is a more coherent development of everyday, commonsense thinking, based on its 'healthy nucleus'. However, it must never lose contact with common sense and become abstract and disconnected from life. Using this distinction, a critique of the common-sense notion of meritocracy follows, since the educational disconnect between Labour politicians and their working-class supporters is one of its malign results. This critique builds from the evidence of working-class rejection of meritocracy - the healthy nucleus that recognises the inadequacy of its justifying principle of equality of opportunity. To this is counterposed a good-sense notion of equality - one that embraces equal access to the means for achieving a flourishing life. This notion of equality is then used to explore a number of currently circulating political ideas concerned with equality, both their relationship to common sense and their potential to meet good sense criteria. These ideas include universal basic income, the Conservatives' proposed 'levelling up' agenda, and the demands of Black Lives Matter for racial justice, including the demand to 'defund the police'. A second thread is focused on the relationship between these discourses of common or good sense and the social forces with which they can be connected.

Two limits to the application of Rawls’s concepts of autonomy and the difference principle in contemporary philosophy of education

The concept of justice that Rawls discussed in his famous book “A Theory of Justice” has had a profound influence on contemporary political and moral philosophy, as well as, to some extent, philosophy of education. Many philosophers of education have applied or criticized Rawls’s concepts – above all the concepts of autonomy, the person, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle – which he developed as an essential part of his theory of justice. In this paper I will discuss very briefly only one of the problems that philosophers of education face when applying his concepts of the autonomous person and the difference principle. The essence of this problem is expressed in the question of whether or not to respect the limits of the applicability of these concepts set by Rawls himself.