One of the most important ideas of our times is the conviction that, despite their diversity, all humans have an equal basic moral status (or an equal fundamental worth and dignity), that they are, as Thomas Jefferson famously stated, “created equals” and they should (because they are entitled to) be treated as equals. In this article I defend the suggestion – stated by philosophers like Brian Barry, Ronald Dworkin or Joel Feinberg – that the principle of equal human worth is (...) indemonstrable and has no other basis than itself. I argue, essentially, that all other theories about the basis of equality are false or at least problematic. In the last section I also try to show that, most probably, the truth of the principle of basic human equality cannot be established through any of the usual methods of argumentation and/or justification. (shrink)

Resumen Trabajos recientes demuestran un interés renovado en el análisis de la igualdad como principio fundador del Estado democrático de derecho. Se trata de estudios que evidencian un esfuerzo conceptual por abordar el problema desde el punto de vista de la aplicación y el reconocimiento efectivo del principio de igualdad, pero que dan por supuesta o dejan de lado su fundamentación. Ante estos planteamientos, este trabajo explora una propuesta de justificación filosófica del principio de igualdad en el marco teórico de (...) la ética del discurso de Karl-Otto Apel. La idea es tomar en cuenta el método reconstructivo de esta teoría para identificar un principio de igualdad siempre presupuesto en los discursos prácticos y conferirle así una fundamentación última.Recent works show a renewed interest in the analysis of equality as a founding principle of the democratic rule of law. These studies reveal a conceptual effort to examine the problem from the point of view of the implementation and effective recognition of the principle of equality, but without considering its foundation. Given these approaches, this paper explores a philosophical justification of the principle of equality based on the theoretical framework of Karl-Otto Apel’s discourse ethics. The idea is to consider the reconstructive method of this theory by which it is possible to identify a principle of equality which is always presupposed in the context of practical discourses, and thus give it an ultimate foundation. (shrink)

Theories of equal human rights have experienced an exponential growth during the past thirty or forty years. From declarations of human rights, such as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to arguments about the rights of fetuses versus the rights of women, to claims and counter claims about the rights of minorities to preferential hiring, the rights of animals to life and well-being, and the rights of trees to be preserved, the proliferation of rights affects every phase of (...) our socio-political discourse. Hardly a month goes by without a new book appearing on the subject. (shrink)

This article asks about the justification for the principle of political equality in the sense of equal entitlement to basic rights. A preliminary portion criticizes standard justifications that refer to a property or properties all human beings share; these fail because they are untrue, irrelevant, or question-begging. The more substantial and constructive portion of the article then argues for a different, indirect mode of justification, based on rebuttals of historical presumptions of inequality and the actual evolution of the idea of (...) equality through partial steps and specific precedents. The justification of political equality is thus connected to the explanation of its emergence. (shrink)

This article discusses various arguments for and against treating equality as a fundamental norm in law and political philosophy, combining prior arguments to the effect that equality is essentially an empty idea with arguments that treat it as a non‐empty but mistaken value that should be rejected. After concluding that most of the arguments for treating equality as a fundamental value fall victim to one or both of these arguments, it considers more closely arguments made by philosophers such as Ronald (...) Dworkin and Thomas Nagel that base a duty of promoting equality on the fact that governments impose a legal order on persons without their consent. It concludes that these arguments are mistaken: if the legal order imposed by government is justified then imposing it is not wrongful and generates no duty of equal treatment, while if that order is not justified no requirement of equality of treatment would cure the lack of justification. It concludes that equality should not be a value in law or political theory, but in some cases other considerations may justify particular rules that are sometimes mistakenly thought to be based on equality. (shrink)