Editing Egalitarianism (section)

== Forms ==
Some specifically focused egalitarian concerns include [[communism]], [[Equality before the law|legal egalitarianism]], [[luck egalitarianism]], [[political egalitarianism]], [[Gender equality|gender egalitarianism]], [[racial equality]], [[equality of opportunity]], and [[Christian egalitarianism]]. Common forms of egalitarianism include political and philosophical.<ref>{{Citation |last=Arneson |first=Richard |title=Egalitarianism |date=2013 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/egalitarianism/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Summer 2013 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2022-06-18}}</ref>

=== Legal egalitarianism ===
{{further|Equality before the law}}
{{liberalism sidebar}}
{{republicanism sidebar}}
One argument is that [[liberalism]] provides democratic societies with the means to carry out civic reform by providing a framework for developing public policy and providing the correct conditions for individuals to achieve civil rights.<ref>{{cite conference |author=Rosales, José María |url=http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliRosa.htm |title=Liberalism, Civic Reformism, and Democracy |conference=20th World Congress on Philosophy: Political Philosophy |date=12 March 2010}}</ref> There are two major types of equality:<ref name="EU">[https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229120927947 De Vos, M. (2020). The European Court of Justice and the march towards substantive equality in European Union anti-discrimination law. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 20(1), 62-87.]</ref>
* ''Formal equality'': individual merit-based [[equality of opportunity]].
* ''[[Substantive equality]]'': moves away from individual merit-based comparison towards [[equality of outcome]]s for groups and [[social equity]].

==== Equality of person ====
The [[Bill of Rights 1689|English Bill of Rights of 1689]] and the [[United States Constitution]] use only the term person in operative language involving fundamental rights and responsibilities, except for a reference to men in the English Bill of Rights regarding men on trial for treason; and a rule of proportional Congressional representation in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment to the United States Constitution]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} 

As the rest of the Constitution, in its operative language the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment to the United States Constitution]] uses the term person, stating that "nor shall any State deprives any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-07 |title=14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) |url=https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment |access-date=2024-06-21 |website=National Archives |language=en}}</ref>

==== Gender equality ====
The motto "{{lang|fr|[[Liberté, égalité, fraternité]]}}" was used during the [[French Revolution]] and is still used as an official motto of the French government. The 1789 [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen]] French Constitution is also framed with this basis in equal rights of humankind.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}

The [[Declaration of Independence of the United States]] is an example of an assertion of equality of men as "[[All men are created equal]]" and the wording of men and man is a reference to both men and women, i.e., mankind. [[John Locke]] is sometimes considered the founder of this form.<ref>{{Citation |last=Tuckness |first=Alex |title=Locke’s Political Philosophy |date=2024 |work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ |access-date=2025-03-05 |edition=Summer 2024 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref> Many state constitutions in the United States also use the rights of man language rather than rights of person{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} since the noun man has always been a reference to and an inclusion of both men and women.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rauer |first1=Christine |year=2017 |title=Mann and Gender in Old English Prose: A Pilot Study |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11061-016-9489-1.pdf |journal=Neophilologus |volume=101 |pages=139–158 |doi=10.1007/s11061-016-9489-1 |s2cid=55817181 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10023/8978}}</ref>

The [[Tunisian Constitution of 2014]] provides that "men and women shall be equal in their rights and duties".<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014|title=The Constitution Project}}</ref>

[[Feminism]] is informed by egalitarian philosophy, being a gender-focused philosophy of equality. Feminism is distinguished from egalitarianism by also existing as a political and social movement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fiss|first=Owen|date=1994|title=What is feminism|journal=Arizona State Law Journal|volume=26|pages=413–428|via=HeinOnline}}</ref>

=== Social egalitarianism ===
{{socialism sidebar}}
At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are [[socialism]], [[communism]], [[social anarchism]], [[libertarian socialism]], [[left-libertarianism]], and [[progressivism]], some of which propound [[economic egalitarianism]]. Anti-egalitarianism<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Sidanius, Jim |display-authors=etal |title=Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=30 |issue=1 |year=2000 |pages=41–67 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::aid-ejsp976>3.0.co;2-o}}</ref> or [[elitism]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://englishthesaurus.net/antonym/egalitarian/ |title=Antonyms for egalitarian |website=English Thesaurus |access-date=28 September 2018}}</ref> is opposition to egalitarianism.

==== Economic {{anchor|Economic egalitarianism|Economics|Finance|Financial}} ====
An early example of equality is what might be described as outcome economic egalitarianism is the Chinese philosophy of [[agriculturalism]] which held that the economic policies of a country need to be based upon egalitarian self-sufficiency.<ref name="dw">{{cite book |last=Denecke |first=Wiebke |year=2011 |page=38 |title=The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi |publisher=Harvard University Press}}</ref>

In [[socialism]], [[social ownership]] of [[means of production]] is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an economy characterized by social ownership the [[surplus product]] generated by industry would accrue to the population as a whole as opposed to a class of private owners, thereby granting each increased autonomy and greater equality in their relationships with one another. Although the economist [[Karl Marx]] is sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative theorizing on moral principles altogether. Marx did have a theory of the evolution of moral principles concerning specific [[economic system]]s.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/#KarMarEquRig |title=Egalitarianism |date=16 August 2002 |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=20 November 2013}}</ref>

The American economist [[John Roemer]] has put forth a new perspective on equality and its relationship to socialism. Roemer attempts to reformulate [[Marxist analysis]] to accommodate normative principles of [[distributive justice]], shifting the argument for socialism away from purely technical and materialist reasons to one of distributive justice. Roemer argues that according to the principle of distributive justice, the traditional definition of socialism is based on the principle that individual compensation is proportional to the value of the labor one expends in production ("[[To each according to his contribution]]") is inadequate. Roemer concludes that egalitarians must reject socialism as it is classically defined for equality to be realized.<ref name="Socialism vs Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions, 2008">{{cite journal |title=Socialism vs Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions |author=Roemer, John |year=2008 |journal=Eastern Economic Journal |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=14–26 |doi=10.1057/palgrave.eej.9050011|s2cid=153503350 }}</ref>

The egalitarian management style focusses on the approach to democratize power, decision-making, and responsibility and distributed them more evenly among all members of a team or organization.<ref>The culture Map, Erin Meyer, 2014</ref>

=== Egalitarianism and non-human animals ===
Many philosophers, including Ingmar Persson,<ref>{{cite book |author=Persson, I. |year=1993 |contribution=A basis for (interspecies) equality |editor1=Cavalieri, P. |editor2=Singer, P. |title=The Great Ape Project |place=New York, NY |publisher=St. Martin's Press |pages=183–193}}</ref> [[Peter Vallentyne]],<ref>{{cite journal |author=Vallentyne, P. |year=2005 |title=Of mice and men: Equality and animals |journal=Journal of Ethics |volume=9 |issue=3–4 |pages=403–433 |doi=10.1007/s10892-005-3509-x|hdl=10355/10183 |s2cid=13151744 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Nils Holtug,<ref>{{cite book |author=Holtug, N. |year=2007 |contribution=Equality for animals |editor1=Ryberg, J. |editor2=Petersen, T.S. |editor3=Wolf, C. |title=New Waves in Applied Ethics |place=Basingstoke |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=1–24}}</ref> [[Catia Faria]]<ref>{{cite journal |author=Faria, C. |year=2014 |url=https://www.academia.edu/5911405 |title=Equality, priority and nonhuman animals |journal=Dilemata: International Journal of Applied Ethics |volume=14 |pages=225–236}}</ref> and [[Lewis Gompertz]],<ref>Gompertz, L. (1997 [1824]) Moral inquiries on the situation of man and of brutes, London: Open Gate.</ref> have argued that egalitarianism implies that the interests of non-human animals must be taken into account as well. Philosopher [[Oscar Horta]] has further argued that egalitarianism implies rejecting [[speciesism]], ceasing to exploit non-human animals and aiding [[wild animal suffering|animals suffering in nature]].<ref name="Horta2014">{{cite journal |last=Horta |first=Oscar |date=25 November 2014  |title=Egalitarianism and Animals |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/5 |journal=Between the Species |volume=19 |issue=1}}</ref> Furthermore, Horta argues that non-human animals should be prioritized since they are worse off than humans.<ref name=" Horta2014" />

=== Religious and spiritual egalitarianism ===
==== Christianity ====
{{See also|Christian egalitarianism}}
In 1957, [[Martin Luther King Jr.]] quoted [[Galatians 3:28]] ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"<ref>{{cite web |title=Galatians 3:28 NIV |url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/galatians/3/28 |access-date=4 October 2020 |website=biblia.com}}</ref>) in a pamphlet opposing [[racial segregation in the United States]]. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ."<ref>{{cite web |date=10 February 1957 |title='For All ... A Non-Segregated Society,' A Message for Race Relations Sunday |url=https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/all-non-segregated-society-message-race-relations-sunday |access-date=22 August 2020 |website=The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |language=en}}</ref> He also alluded to that verse at the end of his 1963 "[[I Have a Dream]]" speech.<ref name="Neutel">{{cite news |last1=Neutel |first1=Karin |date=19 May 2020 |title=Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female |language=en |work=Biblical Archaeology Society |url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/galatians-3-28/ |access-date=22 August 2020}}</ref> The verse is cited to support an [[egalitarian]] interpretation of Christianity.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buell |first1=Denise Kimber |last2=Hodge |first2=Caroline Johnson |date=2004 |title=The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |volume=123 |issue=2 |page=235 |doi=10.2307/3267944 |issn=0021-9231 |jstor=3267944}}</ref> According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the central question debated by theologians is whether the statement about ecclesiastical relationships can be translated into a Christian-ethical norm for all human relationships.<ref name="vorster">{{cite journal |last1=Vorster |first1=Jakobus M. |date=2019 |title=The Theological-Ethical Implications of Galatians 3:28 for a Christian Perspective on Equality as a Foundational Value in the Human Rights Discourse |journal=In die Skriflig / In Luce Verbi |volume=53 |issue=1 |page=8 |doi=10.4102/ids.v53i1.2494 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Vorster argues that it can, and that the verse provides a Christian foundation for the promotion of [[human rights]] and equality, in contrast to "patriarchy, racism and exploitation" which in his opinion are caused by human sinfulness.<ref name="vorster" /> Karin Neutel notes how some apply the philosophy of Paul's statement to include sexuality, health and race saying "[The original] three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today." She argues that the verse points to a [[utopian]], [[cosmopolitanism|cosmopolitan]] community.<ref name="Neutel" />

==== Islam ====
The verse [[Al-Hujurat|49]]:13 of The [[Quran]] states: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Quranic Arabic Corpus – Translation |url=http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=49&verse=13 |website=corpus.quran.com |access-date=30 December 2019}}</ref> [[Muhammad]] echoed these egalitarian sentiments, sentiments that clashed with the practices of the pre-Islamic cultures.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} In a review of Louise Marlow's ''Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought,'' [[Ismail Poonawala]] argues the desire for the Arab-Muslim Empire to consolidate power and administer the state rather led to the deemphasis of egalitarian teachings in the Qur'an and by the Prophet.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Poonawala |first1=Ismail |author-link1=Ismail Poonawala |title=Reviewed Work: Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought by Louise Marlow |journal=Iranian Studies |date=Summer 1999 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=405–407 |doi=10.1017/S0021086200002759 |jstor=4311272 |s2cid=245659108 }}</ref>