"Is everyone being equal really possible?"
Haru murmured. Reading materials in the library.
"Equality of what?" Simon asked.
"Everything. Opportunity, outcome, ability..."
Ren interrupted. "Those are different concepts."
"Different?"
"Equality of opportunity aligns the starting point. Equality of outcome aligns the goal."
Simon supplemented. "And these two are incompatible."
Haru was surprised. "Why?"
"Because abilities differ," Ren explained. "Give the same opportunity, results differ."
"So to align results?"
"Restrict those with high ability, or assist those with low ability."
Haru thought. "Is that fair?"
"Fairness and equality are also different," Simon said. "Aristotle taught 'distributive justice.'"
"Distributive?"
"Distribute according to each person's worth. Not completely same, but proportionally."
"According to ability?"
"Or according to need. Marx said 'From each according to ability, to each according to need.'"
Ren objected. "But who decides need?"
"Difficult problem," Simon acknowledged. "Becomes subjective judgment."
Haru wrote in her notebook. "Equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, distributive justice... complex."
"Let us look at Rawls' 'Theory of Justice,'" Ren suggested.
"What theory?"
"The veil of ignorance. Decide society's rules without knowing your position."
Haru was interested. "Not knowing?"
"Rich or poor, healthy or sick. Know nothing."
"When deciding in that state?"
"Everyone should choose fair rules," Simon explained. "Because you might be in the worst position."
"Clever," Haru admired.
"Rawls derived two principles," Ren continued. "First principle: equality of basic liberties."
"Basic liberties?"
"Freedom of speech, thought, movement. These should be completely equal."
"Second principle?"
"Inequality is permitted only when it benefits the least advantaged."
Haru began to understand. "Everyone need not be the same. But if the weak benefit."
"Yes. For example, doctors earning more is because medical services benefit society as a whole."
Simon offered another perspective. "But Nozick objected."
"How?"
"The state has no right to redistribute wealth. Individual property rights take priority."
Haru was confused. "Then poor people?"
"A position that says self-responsibility," Ren explained. "Libertarianism."
"Is not that cold?"
"Emphasizes efficiency. Pursuing equality loses motivation to work hard."
Simon supplemented. "Look at communism's failure, they say."
Haru thought. "But we cannot choose our birth environment, right?"
"Sharp," Ren nodded. "That is 'luck egalitarianism's' claim."
"Luck?"
"Ability differences are largely determined by genes and environment. Not individual responsibility."
"So should compensate?"
"Dworkin said yes. But how far to compensate is difficult."
Simon gave another example. "Height is unequal. But compensate?"
"...Do not," Haru answered.
"Why?"
"Because not important?"
"Yes. There are domains where equality is important and where it is not."
Ren organized. "Walzer proposed 'spheres of justice.'"
"Spheres?"
"Health, education, wealth, power. Each should be distributed by different principles."
Haru understood. "Health according to need, education according to ability?"
"Or guarantee basic portions of health and education equally to everyone."
Simon offered a realistic perspective. "Complete equality is probably impossible."
"Why?"
"Human diversity. Differences in effort. Element of luck."
"So what should we aim for?"
Ren answered. "Minimum equality. Safety net."
"No one falls into extreme poverty?"
"Yes. Sen's 'capability approach.'"
"Capability?"
"Opportunity to develop abilities. Make that equal."
Haru took a deep breath. "Equality is a simple word, but deep."
"May be a process rather than a goal," Simon said.
"Process?"
"Rather than reaching perfect equality, constantly questioning fairness."
Ren nodded. "Find inequality, correct it. Repeat."
Haru smiled. "A journey without end."
"But a meaningful journey."
The three looked outside the window. An unequal world. But can change little by little.
Perfect equality may not exist.
But a more just society may be created.
Believing that, continue thinking.