Introduction
Differences between humans are omnipresent. Sameness, though rarer, is also in plentiful supply, especially when theoretical concepts like rights are involved. But when do difference and sameness become a normative and political issue?  How should we deal with them and what are their consequences? These are the questions I seek to answer in this essay. In this process I will explain the difference between difference and sameness on the one, and (in)equality on the other side. I will then outline why beyond ethical considerations, all (in)equality requires justification. In the next step we can then look at what these justifications can look like.

(In)equality is Normative
In the framework I try to establish here equality and inequality are inherently normative because they are the normative expressions for sameness and difference. That is to say that a difference in income between two people is simply an observation or a fact. An inequality in income is a normative observation which requires justification. Two people receiving the same benefits is again an observation, receiving equal benefits is a normative observation which requires justification. Any equality or inequality between people that lacks justification is unjust. Justification here can be derived from an academic discourse or political means. The latter could be for instance that a majority believes an (in)equality to be justified. I would locate this framework in the tradition of ethical emotivism, in which ethics are an expression of our emotions. Something is wrong, or unjust, first and foremost because we experience it to be so.  

Why Does (In)equality Need Justification?
Apart from ethical considerations there are also practical reasons why (in)equality must be justified. Ultimately people are disinclined to accept (in)equality without reason because it triggers our inherent desire for justice and fairness. We feel that something is unjust, it makes us angry, sad or frustrated. In this framework any (in)equality for which people do not demand justification has been falsely labelled and should be called difference or sameness instead. That is because if people do not demand justification, it seems it does not bother them much. For example, people rarely get angry about the fact that some are taller than others. It is thus an issue difference, rather than inequality. Now you might ask why people believing an (in)equality to be unjust is of relevance. I might point to an unjustified (in)equality and be outraged by it but why should you care? In short, because me and most other people are willing to go to great lengths to address injustice including armed conflict, sabotage and grass-roots redistribution (boring people call it theft). If you care about living in a peaceful and stable society, (in)equality matters. (In)equality then, needs justification so that we feel that power, wealth, chances or even natural predispositions are distributed in a fair way. Some have power because they are strong, some were wealthy because God said they are monarchs, we receive the same education so that we have equal chances, you are healthy because you have done good in your past life. Anything can be a justification, but we do need it. If people are faced with (in)equality and there is no good justification and nothing is done to address the (in)equality the consequence is conflict. Thus, beyond a theoretical discourse, determining where (in)equalities exist and assessing how convincing their justifications are is crucial if we seek to avoid conflict.

What Is a Good Justification?
Justifications can range from reasonable, to funky to downright insane. Here are some:

• Some have power because God told the Pope that they are monarchs
• Everyone receives equal education so that we have equal chances
• Some are healthier than others because they did good in their past life
• Some are wealthy because their parents are rich
• Some are poor because they do not work enough
• Everyone has equal rights because we are all humans

Anything can be a justification, but we do need it. If people are faced with (in)equality and there is no good justification, and nothing is done to address the (in)equality the consequence is conflict. Thus, beyond a theoretical discourse, determining where (in)equalities exist and assessing how convincing their justifications are is crucial if we seek to avoid conflict. Justifications for inequality or equality do not need internally sound, but they must be convincing enough to those affected. I want to stress that ANY social system whether unequal or equal in wealth, power, chances, spiritual status and so on must have convincing justifications for differences or the lack thereof so that those affected can consider it fair. Still the justifications must only be perceived to be convincing. Faith and spirituality for instance may seem to some to be a rather poor justification for inequality but if people perceive it to be convincing, then they believe the (in)equality to be just. That is why analysing and challenging contemporary justifications is so crucial. An inequality must always be justified or resolved. But if both equality and inequality must be justified then there is two ways to do so. The first is to strip the (in)equality of its normative status and turning into sameness or difference. People might have sought justifications for the inequality in health and attributed it to God or Witches or past lives.  With advancements in medicine, we discovered that some diseases are caused genetically about which we cannot do much yet. The issue was thus turned into a difference rather than an inequality.  With further advancements in medicine, we might be able to treat genetic diseases in the future and depending on how affordable these treatments we are likely to bring the issue back into the realm of inequality. The second, and much more common way to resolve a conflict around (in)equality is done by redefining justification. We can redefine justifications to make them more convincing given our existing circumstances. For example, excess wealth used to be justified by societal status which granted land ownership. With the rise of a mercantile class and later capitalists during the industrialization, wealth inequality persisted but the old justifications were unconvincing. Thus, a new justification to fit existing circumstances was necessary. We created the idea that excess wealth was not a consequence of exploitation but instead hard work and smart investments.  As dumb as this justification might be to some of you it still works today. It gets more complicated when we face an injustice based on (in)equality which cannot be resolved simply by changing or adapting the justification. Most civil rights movements are good examples where an inequality in rights cannot be addressed by changing justifications for inequality. This was attempted of course, think of racial profiling where people have effectively less rights. The justification used to be based on genetics where minorities are profiled because they are for example People of Colour. To maintain this inequality a new justification was created in which we take a detour by saying that some minorities have less wealth and are thus more likely to commit crimes. This justifies racial profiling but not because they are of that minority but because they are more likely to commit crimes due to their socio-economic circumstances. Of course, the two are inherently linked and the new justification changes nothing about the fact that wherever we permit racial profiling we give less rights to affected minorities. Anyway, if the conflict about exiting (in)equalities is successful we then have a both a change in justification and in circumstances. Women are equal to men so they can work, vote, open bank accounts, and earn the same wages. Once men were clever enough to listen to women and realize this, people started to change circumstances by giving women (un)equal rights based on new justifications centred around (in)equality. Since most were concerned with rights they were mostly about giving equal rights to women, but some are in fact unequal and for good reason. For example, men do not get pregnant and have to give birth so giving equal rights in a work environment would ultimately disadvantage women. To give all equal chances to have successful careers and earn equal wages we must have unequal rights.

So we know that difference and sameness, if normatively charged, become equality and inequality which both require justification. This justification is necessary to avoid conflict. If some people consider a justification to be unconvincing, they must point out why it is unconvincing and why an alternative justification is better or why a change in whatever creates the (in)equality is necessary. But if any (in)equality is unproblematic if it is supported by a justification that is perceived to be convincing then why should we prefer one system of (in)equality over another? As long as everyone is on board it seems like it really does not matter whether we find ourselves in a dictatorship or democracy and how much wealth a small minority has or does not have. Here we come to the last point which is conflicting values.

(In)equality and Conflicting Values
In short, the point here is that whether we believe any system or status quo to be “good” is not just dependent on (in)equality but other factors as well. These can be summarized in values derived from input and output-based theories. Although most people probably do not consciously think in these categories most opinions on values can be assigned to one or both of these categories. Input based justifications rest on intention, principles and rules. For example, it is ethical to steal food if your intention is to save a starving kid. Or following the rule or principle that anything is permissible to save your own life you can use violence to defend yourself against an attacker. Emotivism can also be located here but we do not consciously think about rules or principles but instead we derive them from our emotions towards an issue. Stealing food to save a kid’s life feels right and so it is. Of course, these cases are uncontroversial, but they serve to illustrate how input-based ethics approaches a question. Output-based ethics in contrast focus on the consequences of an action. Often this is approach is summarized under utilitarian principles such as any action should bring about the greatest love for the greatest number. Or, that we should aim to increase average wellbeing for everyone. Stealing is permissible then if the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones.

Now let us say that you believe people should not starve based on your principles. Then any system no matter how internally sound it may be will come under scrutiny if it leads to people starving to death. Similarly, if you believe that addressing climate change is necessary based on a utilitarian calculus then any system which exhibits (in)equality that is conducive to damages to our climate will, again, come under scrutiny. Justifications for (in)quality are mainly reliant on being internally sound but can be challenged if arrangements contradict other values that we hold. It might have seemed like a justified inequality that women cannot vote but it conflicts with ideas of human equality, representative democracy, universal rights, self-determination and so on.

I run out of space here and believe this essay to be filled enough of my opinions already. I also already wrote a long time on this essay and want to get it done so this will be a bit of a ramble. I want to stress however that current arrangements of (in)equality are shit. They might be better than they used to be, but they ultimately stand in the way of sustainability, peace and human welfare globally. But why is it so hard to change them. The question we should ask instead is “qui bono?”, who profits? Limiting extensive rights to white men with property was understandable, if cruel, from a male perspective because they maintained power and wealth. Having power and wealth it was easy for them to supress any kind of resistance or opposing views to this arrangement. Today the situation is more complex because interest groups are harder to define but the issue remains. People or legal entities with wealth and power will cling to whatever allows them to remain rich and powerful. People do not want climate change but big oil wants profits, so they stall, while their CEO’s earn so much money that their CO2 emissions are often thousands of times higher than that of the average person (globally). The Zuckerbergs of this world want to maintain control over public discourse so they invoke ideas of freedom of expression while their platforms make people depressed, lonely, anorexic, violent and ultimately misinformed about Zuckerberg’s rich friends so that they can stay in power. All of this are generalizations of course but as far as generalizations go, I think this is one of the more accurate ones. To maintain their dominance these interest groups must prevent that contemporary arrangements of (in)equality are challenged. They do so by controlling media outlets, social media platforms, spreading misinformation and lobbying. But this is not a pessimistic outlook, it is a description of our current condition. We are on a good way to put an end to patriarchy (mainly talking about Europe here) and have already won some major battles regarding equal rights. Defeating rich white men is almost synonymous with defeating the rich and powerful today. If we done it once, we can do it again.