Abstract

(Uncorrected OCR) Abstract Abstract of thesis entitled Liberty, Equality and Justice: A Critique of Kai Nielsen's Radical Egalitarianism submitted by Chan Chong Fai for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong in June 1997. This thesis is a critique of Kai Nielsen's radical egalitarianism--a doctrine which he claims is radically more egalitarian than Rawls' theory of justice, and which spells out Marx's slogan `From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs' in a relatively abundant society without classes. The author contends that Nielsen's radical egalitarianism is theoretically inconsistent, practically implausible, and, if it could be implemented, would lead to authoritarianism. Nielsen's theory consists of Rawls' principle of liberty, and Nielsen's principle of economic equality. The latter includes the principle of needs, criteria of desert and entitlement (and maximizing utilities). Nielsen provides a theory with substantial content, but it lacks consistency and practicality. And his egalitarian (of needs) and inegalitarian (of desert, entitlement and utility) elements inevitably clash and dilute the radical nature of his doctrine. Pursuing complete equality of conditions for all is an unrealistic and dangerous pursuit: unrealistic, because it neglects the complexity of our social structure and the diversity of personality and individuals' interests; dangerous, because it may lead to an expansion of the state and diminution of individuals' liberties. The critique is conducted through the perspectives of liberty, equality and justice. The author first contends that Nielsen's conceptions of liberty are a confusion of political ideas and moral goods, and this confusion results in a paradox of liberty. Second, when the abstract and idealistic concept of equality is analyzed into its many (in)equalities and its various dimensions, against the background of the complexity of our society, it is seen to be fraught with inconsistencies and implausibilities. Third, Nielsen's conception of justice as equality is not a coherent whole. Its elements clash with each other and are practically indeterminate. The thesis concludes by looking at the failed experiences of socialism, the possibility of a classless society, and Nielsen's defense of Marx's conception of justice and morality.