[Part 7]Moral clarity is not the fruit of isolated contemplation, but the offspring of dialogue. It emerges not in the silence of certainty but in the friction of ideas, where convictions are tested and empathy is awakened. Truth is seldom found in solitude; it reveals itself in the shared pursuit of meaning.There’s an old anecdote from a university ethics class that illustrates this perfectly. A professor once gave her students a seemingly simple question for their final exam: “Is it ever right to lie?” Expecting deep, individual essays, she was surprised when one student turned in a blank page, except for a single sentence: “It depends—let’s talk about it!”Initially, she considered failing the student for not writing a proper essay. But as she thought about it, she realised the response captured something profoundly true: moral clarity often emerges not from solitary conclusions, but from shared dialogue. The best answers aren’t always born in silence or certainty, but in the messy, human act of talking things through—especially when our values and principles collide.The student ended up passing, not because the answer was complete, but because it was honest. It reminded the class that ethics is less about memorising rules and more about learning to listen, to question, and to reason together.The idea that moral clarity often arises through conversation rather than solitary reflection is central to the tradition of public reason and deliberative democracy. It holds that understanding what is right or just isn’t something we can always achieve alone, through private thought. Instead, we refine our moral compass through dialogue with others—by listening, questioning, disagreeing, and being challenged. This process allows us to confront different perspectives, test our assumptions, and develop a more thoughtful, empathetic understanding of justice.A key reference that explores this idea is “Democracy and Its Critics” by Robert A. Dahl (1989). In it, Dahl argues that democratic legitimacy depends not only on voting or institutions but on the ongoing public discussion of values and principles. Another important work is “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” by John Rawls (1997), where he explains that in a pluralistic society, people must justify their political decisions in terms others can reasonably accept—not just from private belief, but through shared, public reasoning.The point is: when we engage in conversation, we open ourselves to the moral insights of others, and in doing so, we often discover parts of our own convictions that we hadn’t fully understood. Dialogue doesn’t always bring instant agreement, but it deepens the way we think about right and wrong—and that, in itself, is clarity.Now, let's return to our topic of equality.
Equality, from a social and cultural perspective, refers to a condition in which individuals or groups are afforded the same status, rights, and opportunities, regardless of their background, identity, or position within society. It means that no one is seen as inherently superior or inferior due to their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, class, sexuality, or cultural heritage. Social equality is not merely about laws and policies but about creating environments where all people feel valued and included, where their voices are heard, and their identities respected. Cultural equality, on the other hand, recognises the richness and worth of diverse traditions and ways of life, promoting mutual respect and the right to cultural expression without fear of marginalisation or discrimination. In essence, it’s about levelling the playing field—not by making everyone the same, but by ensuring everyone is treated with fairness and dignity.
Social equality refers to a state in which all individuals within a society enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities, regardless of their background or social identity. It means that everyone should have fair access to education, healthcare, employment, and political participation, without being hindered by discrimination or prejudice. Social equality does not imply that everyone must live the same life or achieve the same outcomes, but rather that the system itself must not favour one group over another. It seeks to eliminate structural barriers and ensure that power, resources, and opportunities are distributed justly. Ultimately, social equality is about creating a society where every person has the chance to thrive with dignity and freedom.
One highly regarded reference that explores the concept of social equality in depth is “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (2009). In this work, the authors argue that societies with greater income equality tend to perform better across a wide range of social and health indicators, including education, crime rates, mental well-being, and community trust. Drawing on a wealth of statistical evidence, they demonstrate that inequality is not merely a matter of economic disparity, but a social condition that influences almost every aspect of our collective life. The book has become a cornerstone for understanding the broader implications of social equality and continues to inspire discussions among policymakers, educators, and activists. It pushes the idea that true progress as a society isn’t just measured by how rich a country is, but by how fairly that wealth is shared among its people.Another influential book that examines the idea of social equality is “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” by Michael J. Sandel (2009). In this thought-provoking work, Sandel explores philosophical and practical questions surrounding justice, fairness, and the common good. While the book is grounded in political philosophy, it strongly emphasises how social structures and policies affect people's ability to live dignified and equal lives. Sandel invites readers to think critically about what we owe one another as members of a shared society and challenges the notion that justice is simply about individual freedom or market fairness. Instead, he argues that a just society must ensure equal respect and meaningful participation for all, especially the marginalised. Through real-world examples and moral dilemmas, the book encourages a richer understanding of what true social equality entails.Rujukan lain yang juga punya pengaruh gede dalam bahas kesetaraan sosial adalah “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” karya Michael J. Sandel (2009). Karya ini ngajak pembacanya mikir soal apa itu keadilan, apa itu kebaikan bersama, dan gimana struktur sosial serta kebijakan bisa nentuin apakah hidup orang-orang berjalan setara dan bermartabat. Walau bahasannya banyak ngulik filsafat politik, Sandel tetap ngebawa topik ini ke level kehidupan nyata dengan gaya yang relatable. Doi ngajak kita bertanya: sebagai sesama warga dalam satu masyarakat, sebenarnya kita punya tanggungjawab apa satu dengan yang lain? Sandel juga ngebantah gagasan bahwa keadilan cuma soal kebebasan pribadi atau keadilan pasar. Menurutnya, masyarakat yang adil itu yang bisa ngasih ruang, penghormatan, dan kesempatan buat semua orang, apalagi yang sering disingkirkan sistem. Jadi, karya ini tuh semacam peta moral buat ngebayangin ulang dunia yang benar-benar setara.Sandel opens the conversation by posing a classic moral dilemma known as the trolley problem. He asks readers to imagine a situation where a runaway trolley is about to kill five people tied to the tracks. You are standing nearby and have the power to divert the trolley onto another track, where it would kill just one person instead. This ethical puzzle sets the tone for the entire book, raising the question: is it morally right to sacrifice one life to save five?Sandel uses this example to introduce two major philosophical approaches to justice—utilitarianism, which supports the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontological ethics, which focuses on duties and moral principles regardless of the consequences. He doesn’t offer easy answers but instead invites the reader into a journey of moral reasoning. By starting with this dilemma, Sandel shows that justice is not only a political or legal issue but a deeply human concern, grounded in the decisions we make every day. He encourages us to examine not just what we do, but why we do it, and whether our choices align with deeper principles of right and wrong.According to Sandel, justice is not merely about following rules or enforcing laws; it is about reasoning together as a society to decide what is morally right. For Sandel, justice involves more than personal freedom or individual rights—it is deeply connected to the idea of the common good. He argues that a just society is one in which people actively engage in public life, debate ethical questions, and make collective decisions about what values should guide their communities. True justice, in this view, is not neutral or detached; it requires us to consider our responsibilities to others and to take a stand on moral issues. Justice means treating people with dignity, ensuring fairness in social arrangements, and creating conditions in which everyone can flourish—not in isolation, but as members of a shared moral and civic community.Liberalism and the Limits of Justice is one of Michael J. Sandel’s most influential and intellectually rigorous works, first published in 1982. In this book, Sandel offers a deep critique of the liberal philosophy of John Rawls, particularly Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness outlined in A Theory of Justice. Sandel argues that Rawls’ vision of the self—as a free, rational individual detached from personal attachments, values, and communal ties—is too abstract and unrealistic.Sandel explains a core idea of liberal political philosophy—particularly the version advocated by thinkers like John Rawls. According to this liberal view, a just society should not force its citizens to adopt a single definition of the good life. Instead, the role of the state is to ensure that people are free to choose their own values, goals, and beliefs, without being coerced into living a life they did not choose.For that reason, the laws and principles that govern society must be neutral—they cannot assume that one religious, moral, or cultural view is superior to others. Justice, under liberalism, must be detached from specific conceptions of what a meaningful or virtuous life looks like. This neutrality is meant to protect individual freedom and pluralism, allowing diverse ways of living to coexist peacefully.However, as Sandel explores throughout the book, this attempt at neutrality can also be problematic. He argues that it’s often impossible—and perhaps undesirable—to completely separate justice from moral and cultural values, because our sense of right and wrong is shaped by the communities we belong to. So while this passage reflects the liberal aspiration for fairness through neutrality, Sandel invites us to question whether such neutrality is truly achievable or even morally sufficient.Sandel insists that we are not isolated individuals choosing our moral commitments from a neutral standpoint. Rather, we are already shaped by histories, communities, traditions, and identities that give our choices meaning. Therefore, he claims, a just society cannot be built on a purely individualistic idea of freedom and neutrality. Justice, in Sandel’s view, must account for the moral and cultural ties that bind people together. His work helped to reignite the debate between liberal and communitarian thought, challenging the assumption that justice could ever be fully neutral or detached from context.The work is deeply connected to the concept of equality, but it approaches the topic from a philosophical angle rather than a strictly economic or legal one. Michael J. Sandel challenges the liberal notion that equality can be achieved by treating individuals as abstract, autonomous agents who are all entitled to the same rights and opportunities, regardless of their social or moral backgrounds.For Sandel, true equality cannot be separated from the communities and moral ties that shape people’s lives. He argues that a just society must not only ensure equal treatment but also recognise the shared values, histories, and identities that give meaning to our choices. In other words, justice—and thus equality—is not only about distributing resources fairly, but about acknowledging who people are and where they come from.This communitarian view suggests that equality should not ignore the social fabric that binds us. Instead of pretending we’re all just neutral citizens floating in a vacuum, Sandel calls for an understanding of equality that respects the real conditions in which people live, including their sense of belonging and mutual obligation.Sandel challenges us to ask not only “What’s fair?” but also “What kind of society do we want to live in?” He argues that true justice cannot be detached from moral reflection and civic engagement. It must consider the values that unite us, the obligations we have to one another, and the shared responsibilities that come with living in community. For Sandel, justice is not merely a question of individual rights or efficiency, but of nurturing a society where the common good is actively pursued and where people are treated not as isolated consumers, but as citizens with dignity and purpose.Culturally, equality promotes the recognition and respect for diverse traditions, languages, and ways of life. It promotes the idea that no culture is inherently superior to another, and that diversity should be celebrated rather than suppressed. In this sense, cultural equality challenges stereotypes, fosters inclusion, and demands space for all identities to thrive on their own terms.Cultural equality refers to the recognition, respect, and fair treatment of all cultural identities and traditions within a society. It means that no culture is seen as superior or more “civilised” than another, and everyone is given the freedom to express their heritage, language, values, and beliefs without fear of discrimination or marginalisation. Cultural equality is not about making every culture the same, but about making sure every culture has equal space and voice in the public sphere. It challenges the dominance of any single cultural narrative and encourages a society where diversity is seen not as a problem to be managed, but as a strength to be celebrated. At its core, cultural equality is about belonging—about ensuring that people from all walks of life feel seen, heard, and respected in the shared spaces we call home.In “Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights” (1995, Oxford University Press), Will Kymlicka argues that justice in diverse societies requires more than equal individual rights—it also requires the recognition of cultural group rights. He makes the case that members of minority cultures should have special protections and support to preserve their identities, languages, and traditions within the wider society. For Kymlicka, cultural equality is not about erasing differences, but about respecting them and ensuring all cultural groups can flourish equally under a shared political framework.Kymlicka introduces the idea of the politics of multiculturalism as a way of addressing the challenges that arise in liberal democracies when culturally diverse groups live together under a shared political system. He argues that traditional liberalism, which emphasises equal individual rights, often fails to account for the unique needs and vulnerabilities of minority cultures—especially indigenous peoples and national minorities.The politics of multiculturalism, according to Kymlicka, means recognising that justice sometimes requires more than treating everyone the same. It calls for group-differentiated rights—special legal or political rights granted to cultural minorities so they can preserve their identity, language, and way of life. This might include autonomy over education, recognition of traditional land rights, or protection of minority languages in public institutions.Kymlicka insists that these rights are not privileges, but tools to ensure real equality. Without them, minority groups are often forced to assimilate into the dominant culture, losing their distinctiveness and dignity in the process. The politics of multiculturalism, then, is about rethinking equality—not as uniformity, but as inclusion that respects difference.According to Kymlicka, liberal democracies have traditionally focused on individual rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and personal autonomy. However, in culturally plural societies, this focus can unintentionally privilege the majority culture while undermining the survival of minority groups.Kymlicka’s view on individual rights and collective rights is a distinctive feature of his theory of multicultural citizenship. He argues that these two types of rights are not inherently opposed but can—and often must—work together to achieve true justice in diverse societies.Kymlicka introduces the idea of group-differentiated rights, which are collective rights granted to minority communities to protect their distinct cultural identities. These rights may include self-government, language preservation, or special legal recognition, and are designed to level the playing field between dominant and minority cultures. Crucially, he insists that collective rights should not violate the individual rights of members within those groups. Instead, they should support individual autonomy by preserving the cultural context in which people find meaning and identity.Kymlicka believes that collective rights, when carefully defined and limited, can enhance rather than threaten liberal individual rights. They provide a framework for inclusion that respects both personal freedom and cultural belonging.Kymlicka’s work is a powerful call to rethink the liberal tradition in the context of multicultural societies. He does not reject liberalism outright, but he believes that classical liberalism—built on the ideal of a neutral state treating all citizens as isolated individuals—fails to address the deep cultural and identity-based inequalities that exist in real-world democracies. Kymlicka argues that liberalism must evolve beyond its abstract commitment to sameness and individualism, and instead recognise the importance of culture in shaping people’s choices, values, and sense of self.For Kymlicka, rethinking the liberal tradition means acknowledging that freedom and equality are not always achieved by pretending everyone starts from the same place. Some groups, especially minorities and indigenous peoples, face structural disadvantages that cannot be solved through individual rights alone. To be truly fair, liberalism must accommodate group-differentiated rights—a shift that doesn’t betray liberal values, but fulfils them more honestly in diverse societies. In this way, Kymlicka reimagines liberalism not as colour-blind or culture-blind, but as actively inclusive and culturally aware.Kymlicka argues that freedom and culture are deeply intertwined, and that genuine individual freedom is not possible without access to a meaningful cultural context. In traditional liberal thought, freedom is often seen as the ability to make choices independently, without interference. But Kymlicka challenges this by pointing out that the ability to make meaningful choices depends on having a cultural framework—a shared language, history, and set of values—that gives those choices significance.He explains that people don’t make decisions in a vacuum. Our sense of what’s possible, desirable, or worthwhile is shaped by the culture we grow up in. Therefore, when minority cultures are marginalised or eroded, the individuals within them lose more than traditions—they lose the very tools that allow them to exercise freedom meaningfully.For Kymlicka, protecting cultural communities isn’t about freezing cultures in time or avoiding change. It’s about ensuring that individuals have a stable cultural space from which they can choose, adapt, or even reject aspects of their heritage. True freedom, he says, is the ability to navigate life from within a cultural home—not from nowhere.Kymlicka’s view on justice and minority rights is rooted in the belief that a fair society must go beyond treating everyone identically—it must also recognise the specific needs and vulnerabilities of cultural minorities. For Kymlicka, justice is not blind to difference; rather, it requires us to engage with difference thoughtfully and respectfully. In diverse societies, he argues, treating everyone "the same" can actually reinforce inequality, because it assumes that all individuals have equal access to cultural recognition, social power, and public voice—which is rarely the case.Kymlicka believes that justice demands the protection of minority rights, particularly when it comes to indigenous peoples, national minorities, and immigrant communities. These rights are not about giving special privileges—they are about creating the conditions under which minorities can live with dignity, maintain their cultural identity, and participate equally in public life. Justice, in his view, means enabling all groups to flourish—not just survive—within the larger society.His theory is a challenge to traditional liberal models that often favour a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, Kymlicka advocates for a justice that listens, adapts, and includes—especially for those whose voices have been historically ignored.Kymlicka strongly believes that ensuring a voice for minorities is essential to a genuinely democratic and just society. He argues that in pluralistic states, minority groups are often politically marginalised—not because they lack intelligence or ideas, but because their perspectives are filtered out by dominant institutions, languages, and cultural norms. Simply having the right to vote or speak isn’t enough if the system itself is not designed to hear or understand minority voices.Kymlicka advocates for structural inclusion—mechanisms like guaranteed political representation, language rights, and community self-governance—that go beyond formal equality. Giving minorities a real voice means creating spaces where their concerns, identities, and visions of the good life can be heard on equal footing. It also means recognising that silence isn’t neutrality—it’s often the result of being historically silenced.Ultimately, Kymlicka sees democracy not just as majority rule, but as inclusive dialogue. A democracy that doesn’t actively include minorities is not truly democratic; it’s merely procedural. Giving minorities a voice, for Kymlicka, is not about favouritism—it’s about fairness.Kymlicka approaches the concept of toleration with a clear understanding of both its importance and its limits. He acknowledges that toleration—respecting and allowing cultural differences—is a fundamental principle in liberal democracies. However, he warns that toleration alone is not enough in societies marked by deep cultural diversity. Simply “putting up with” differences can sometimes mask indifference, condescension, or passive exclusion.Kymlicka argues that toleration should not be confused with justice. Tolerating a minority’s existence doesn’t automatically mean they are treated fairly or included meaningfully. True multicultural justice, for him, involves more than non-interference; it requires active recognition, structural accommodation, and policies that empower minorities to maintain their identities and participate fully in public life.He also explores the limits of toleration. While respecting diversity is vital, there are boundaries—especially when cultural practices violate basic human rights or individual freedoms within the group itself. Kymlicka insists that multiculturalism must not be a shield for oppression. A just society must be willing to draw lines when group traditions harm the vulnerable, such as women or children. Toleration, then, is not unlimited acceptance—it is measured, principled, and balanced with liberal values.As a response to what he saw as a serious gap in liberal political philosophy, Kymlicka developed the concept of “the ties that bind” . Traditional liberalism tends to view individuals as autonomous agents who can form and revise their life plans regardless of their background. But Kymlicka noticed that this idealised image ignored the lived realities of people who are rooted in specific cultural and historical contexts. He believed that liberalism, in trying to be “neutral” about culture, had unintentionally erased the importance of identity, belonging, and shared meaning in people’s lives.His background in both political theory and real-world issues of minority rights led him to realise that many groups—especially indigenous peoples, national minorities, and immigrant communities—were being excluded from full citizenship, not because of a lack of rights, but because the system didn’t acknowledge the deep ties that shaped their identities. For these communities, justice wasn’t just about freedom from interference, but also about recognition, respect, and the space to be who they are.Thus, Kymlicka introduced “the ties that bind” to push liberalism toward a more inclusive, realistic, and culturally sensitive model. He wanted to show that far from being a threat to freedom, cultural ties are what make freedom meaningful. His work emerged from both philosophical critique and a moral urgency to address the silent erasure of minority voices in modern democracies.Will Kymlicka’s reflections on “the ties that bind” centre around the idea that individuals are not free-floating agents, detached from history or community. Instead, he argues that people are deeply shaped by the cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts in which they are raised. These “ties” are not chains that restrict freedom, but roots that provide identity, meaning, and a sense of belonging. For Kymlicka, recognising these bonds is crucial to building a just and inclusive society.He challenges the liberal assumption that justice requires total neutrality toward people’s cultural affiliations. In his view, a fair society must respect and support these ties—especially for minority groups—so that individuals can flourish within the cultural frameworks that shape who they are. The ties that bind us, such as shared language, traditions, and memories, do not prevent freedom; rather, they enable people to make choices that are meaningful and grounded.Kymlicka sees multicultural rights not as exceptions, but as necessary tools to preserve these bonds in the face of assimilation and cultural erasure. To ignore the ties that bind is to ignore what makes people whole.In “Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism” (2001, Harvard University Press), Brian Barry is more critical of certain aspects of multiculturalism, he still engages deeply with the question of how to ensure equality in culturally diverse societies. He argues that true cultural equality must involve universal access to rights and resources, and that cultural practices should not be used to justify social inequalities. His work challenges us to think carefully about how culture intersects with justice, and how societies can promote both fairness and diversity without compromising either.Barry introduces the idea of the abuse of culture to criticise how cultural arguments are sometimes used to shield unjust or harmful practices from scrutiny. He argues that some groups invoke “cultural rights” not to protect meaningful traditions, but to excuse behaviours that would otherwise be considered unacceptable—such as gender inequality, religious intolerance, or child neglect. For Barry, this is a misuse of multiculturalism, one that undermines the very idea of justice.Barry contends that culture should never be treated as a moral sanctuary that places its members beyond criticism. He warns that when culture becomes an untouchable justification, it can be used to silence internal dissent and protect the powerful within a community at the expense of the vulnerable. He is especially critical of liberal theorists who, in the name of respecting diversity, fail to challenge practices that clearly violate universal human rights.Ultimately, Barry calls for a multiculturalism that is compatible with basic liberal values—where cultural diversity is welcomed, but not allowed to override equality, individual rights, and democratic accountability. For him, the abuse of culture happens when we confuse respect with moral relativism.Barry argues that a just society must be built on the foundation of equal rights, equal opportunities, and shared civic responsibilities—regardless of cultural differences. Unlike multicultural theorists who advocate for special group-based rights, Barry believes that justice requires treating all citizens under the same legal and political standards. His central claim is that fairness is undermined when the state begins to accommodate different cultural practices with different rules. For Barry, that kind of multiculturalism risks fragmenting society and weakening the common ground needed for solidarity.Barry acknowledges the reality of cultural diversity, but he insists that public policy should prioritise socio-economic equality over cultural recognition. He argues that what disadvantaged people really need is access to quality education, healthcare, and employment—not symbolic gestures or legal exceptions based on identity. A just society, in his view, empowers individuals as equals, not as representatives of separate cultural blocs.He doesn't deny that culture matters, but he warns against making it the primary lens through which justice is understood. To build a fair society in a culturally diverse world, Barry proposes a firm commitment to universalism: the same rules, the same protections, and the same opportunities for all—no matter where you come from.
[Part 5]
