I think equality is quite a loaded word.
You can speak of '
legal' equality, which has nothing to do with your resources or the equitable distribution thereof, but is merely about ensuring we all live in a society governed by the 'rule of law' that does not unfairly discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics like gender, race, sexuality or indeed religion, when it comes to the enjoyment - and protection - of fundamental rights/liberties and the criminal justice system etc. etc.
This may be a 'legal fiction', inasmuch as the idea underpinning it rests on a philosophical (arguably originally religious and Christian) idea of human nature as a blank slate; without taking into consideration widely differing natural aptitudes from individual to individual. And, moreover, vast disparities in access to resources in a free-market economy (with a private sector where the ultra-wealthy can use tax loopholes, lobby governments and employ rent-seeking behaviour to create a situation where the top 1% makes its income primarily from capital, not labour, whilst the labouring masses don't benefit fairly from the wealth they produce).
Nothing about the latter, which has to do with rampant
social inequality, negates the fact that legal equality is foundational to the functioning of many of our societies today.
If you're looking at it from the social perspective, then yes: touting 'equality under the law' or 'equal human rights' can seem rather hollow against a reality where the “unearned income” of the most well-off people in can more than double over a decade while millions endure austerity and stagnant wage growth. It's somewhat reminiscent of that passage from the Epistle of James in the New Testament, where it says:
"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:14-17).
Just as faith without works might be dead theologically, 'legal' equality in the absence of greater social levelling may well seem like a 'husk' or collective illusion which we all inhabit.
I could never
ever hope to one day run as fast as Usain Bolt or solve complex mathematical equations like Albert Einstein and I'll probably never afford the luxurious lifestyle of Jeff Bezos. So, in that respect, its a truism that humans are not born "
equal" in terms of talents and inherited traits, and nor does society at large (at least right now) equalize those resources.
But this doesn't entail that just because we're not born with the equal talents and traits, that we
shouldn't be treated equally, given the same equality of opportunity or even given a leg-up by the state to help even the odds, and that's basically what 'legal equality' with a Western-style social welfare state aims to achieve.
Yet, I think we can never fully escape the warning left by the great liberal philosopher John Rawls, indeed its arguably looking more and more prophetic every day: "
Equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position."
Or as Pope Francis said a number of years ago in an address:
Pastoral visit of the Holy Father Francis to the Archdiocese of Genoa (27 May 2017) – Meeting with the world of work at the Ilva Factory
The new capitalism, through meritocracy, gives a moral appearance to inequality because it interprets the talents of people not as a gift: talent is not a gift according to this interpretation: it is a merit, determining a system of cumulative advantages and disadvantages.
Thus, if two children are born differently in terms of talent or social and economic opportunities, the economic world will interpret the different talents as merits and will pay them otherwise. And so, when those two children retire, the inequality between them will be multiplied...
This is the old logic of Job’s friends, who wanted to convince him that he was guilty of his misfortune. But this is not the logic of the Gospel, it is not the logic of life
