Equality and Social Justice

The term “equality” is defined in a number of academic disciplines, examples being phi-losophy and the social and legal sciences. It is a normative concept referring to special respect for all human beings as equal in a broad sense (Capaldi, 2002). The concepts of equality and social justice are associated with human rights norms, which offer norma-tive and ethical perspecnorma-tives, at least in philosophical terms. A norm is an overarching framework which gives validity to rules, and normative ethics is the part of philosophy that includes social justice. While equality is the basis of justice, injustice arises when equals are treated unequally (Večeřa, 2012, p. 51). This assertion goes hand in hand with British philosopher H.L.A. Hart’s (1961) interpretation of the notion of justice in his book Concept of Law, where he suggests that justice prevails in situations where like cases are treated alike and different cases differently. Hence, equality and justice may yield different meanings in certain situations. For example, what is right or wrong depends on the expectations of the individual, specific groups or cultural or ethnic communities. Yet, there is factual equality, which refers to protection through special treatment – known as positive discrimination – ensuring either identical treatment or differentiated treatment for achieving broader equality and social justice (Capaldi, 2002).

In legal science, the concept of equality has been developed as a core principle of law; it entails protecting all people equally without any discrimination whatsoever. In most legal literature, the concept is integrated within the framework of human rights, in which equality “opens a new space for a standard” (Petrova, 2008, p. 58). This standard offers values by which individuals within a given society are treated, generally ensuring non-discrimination based on race, age, gender, ethnicity and the like. Yet the application of this general notion of non-discrimination falls short of ensuring broader equality. The Declaration of Principles on Equality (DPE, 2008), agreed upon by a group of experts at a conference entitled Principles on Equality and the Development of Legal Standards on Equality (organized by The Equal Rights Trust on 3–5 April 2008 in London), suggests that the notion of equality goes beyond a narrow definition of the non-discrimination principle.

The Declaration sets out a broader perspective on non-discrimination, describing it as “… a free-standing, fundamental right, subsumed in the right to equality” (Principle 4). According to the Declaration, discrimination refers to broader elements, including not only race, colour, ethnicity, descent and gender but also “… pregnancy, maternity, civil, family or career status, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, birth, national or social origin, nationality, economic status, association with a national minority, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, health status, genetic or other predisposition toward illness or a combination of any of these grounds, or on the basis of characteristics associated with any of these grounds” (Principle 5). Equality is also jeopardized where discrimination causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantage, undermines human dignity, or adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person’s rights and freedoms (see Principle 5). In the Declaration, equality refers to “full and effective

equality”, cited in its Principle 1, which is richer than the mere notion of equality before the law and equal opportunity. Principle 1 reaffirms the interrelatedness of equality and dignity asserted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Article 1): “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

Principle 1 of the Declaration of Principles on Equality implies a vision of a just and fair society in which all persons participate on an equal basis with others in economic, social, political, cultural and civil life. Petrova (2008) asserts that Principle 1 includes the following:

(i) the right to recognition of the equal worth and equal dignity of each human being;

(ii) the right to equality before the law; (iii) the right to equal protection and benefit of the law; (iv) the right to be treated with the same respect and consideration as all others;

(v) the right to participate on an equal basis with others in any area of economic, social, political, cultural or civil life. (Petrova, 2008, pp. 34-35).

This notion of equality coincides with the concept of social justice. In social justice theories, inequality occurs when the status, rights and opportunities of persons or groups are not equal (Alkire et al., 2015). Robinson (2011) has defined social justice as “... promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” Thus, the notion is connected to fairness, but what is fair depends on maximization of happiness in the experience of the majority of people. At the end of the day, there is no explicit definition of social justice; it is context dependent. The issue of justice can be argued re-alistically (Weinberger, 1994, p. 247) based on surrounding circumstances that prevail in a region. In this regard, the prominent legal theorist Hans Kelsen (1971) has stated:

Indeed, I don’t know, and I cannot say what justice is, the absolute justice for which man-kind is longing. I must accept a relative justice and I can only say what justice is to me.

(Kelsen, 1971, p. 24).

Social justice, as noted earlier, is connected to equality in a broader sense, which in-cludes, among other elements, a fair distribution of resources and opportunities. There is a need to change rules and laws in a way they include different perspectives, not only the dominant views and experiences or those of the majority); this would eventually create another form of equality, which can be called “transformative equality” (Fredman et al., 2016; Fredman, 2016; Fredman, 2013). To achieve transformative equality in the case of older people, positive measures must redress the social and economic disadvantages they are burdened with: address stigma, stereotyping and prejudice; enhance partici-pation and voice of older people and accommodate difference by achieving structural change. Transformative equality offers scope for social and political participation in the creation of norms within social and institutional structures. My research indicates that inequalities in distribution of resources create problems in any society and in any development scenario, which eventually affects the vulnerable groups of population in the particular society (Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4). The discussions on equality and social

justice are strongly integrated in development theory, which focuses on inequalities in income, wealth, education, health, nutrition and the like. The debate in this vein highlights two perspectives: one is inequality in terms of opportunity, such as unequal access to employment or education; the other is inequality of outcomes, such as the level of income, educational accomplishment, health status and so on (Afonso, LaFleur and Alarcón, 2015). It is possible to provide equal opportunities in a community when the surroundings do not determine the differences in life outcomes (Paes de Barros et al., 2009).

In the case of older people, it is evident, and has been shown, that those in a weak position socio-economically - for example, those who live far from services, alone, isolated and/or receive small pensions - are relatively more vulnerable and face more unequal treatment (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). At times vulnerability among older people caused by this sort of unequal treatment is not properly presented or understood. As a result, it is difficult to identify the social circumstances in a particular region that perpetuate such inequality. In order to identify a source of vulnerability, we need to know the reasons that create inequality; only then can specific problems attract the attention that might lead to their solution (Sen, 2004).

Knowledge from research serves to reveal the reasons for inequalities or obstacles creating inequality in the course of changes occurring in a society as perceived by its citizens (Articles 1, 3, 4 and 5). Establishing the problems or challenges this way helps understand the needs of specific groups of people, including disadvantaged ones (Sen, 1981), which then creates room for promoting social justice. For example, the mobility of the average person is not the same as that of a disabled person who uses a wheelchair;

or the mobility of an older person in an urban setting differs markedly from that of an older person living in a remote and rural setting with relatively fewer services available.

Social justice can only be guaranteed when such circumstances are brought into con-text and a proper and fair opportunity is created for the latter individuals in the above example because of his or her less privileged status.

Being one of the least privileged groups in global perspective, older people have in-creasingly attracted attention with a view to furthering equality and social justice and promoting their wellbeing. For example, in the fourth meeting of the UN Open Ended Working Group on Ageing, held on 13 August 2013 in New York, Israel Doron em-phasized “the need for social justice for older persons around the world” (Doron, 2013, p. 52). In his view, social injustice facing older persons can be redressed by promoting greater social security and by taking positive measure to change social structures based on their essential needs (Article 4). While old age inequality is sometimes connected to an individual’s childhood experiences, it has been said that the likelihood of inequality in old age depends on an individual’s health and social and economic resources in mid-life. The better a person’s status is at that time, the better ageing proceeds later. I have taken this observation into account in examining the range of factors affecting equality and social justice in the case of a given individual.