Equality (II).
Survival
Climbing and Mountaineering
Extreme and Conventional Sports
Travel Services
Photo and Video
Friends
Motivation and Self-Help
Leadership
Natural Health
Courses
Ecology and Gardening
Related Auctions
Vehicles
Play and plant a tree
This brings into question the meaning of 'egalitarianism' since such ambiguous factors can be related to diversity in the meaning of words. Thomas Moore speaks of egalitarianism of ends, because he speaks of results: eventually, all men should feel satisfied and receive what they need. Plato speaks of inequality of legal rights.
In the end, he is an egalitarian because his views about justice imply contentment in the sense that everyone is satisfied with his own position and does not need to envy anyone else, but non-egalitarianism is needed to put in action the mechanisms required to obtain equality and satisfaction.
His view of the matter is plainly a paradox. Aristocracy means that people have an initial equality of opportunities for those born in rich families and poor ones are considered equally in their potential, but then, equality of opportunities and choice are constrained in order to attain contentment, and thus, free will is eliminated.
Neither views contradict the other, since according to Plato, slaves should also be included in his model, there is nothing wrong with having slaves. Moreover, the belief that slaves should have the same rights as their masters under a democratic regime, according to Plato, is wrong, and in the Kallipolis the slaves, understanding their position might also be contended.
In what amounts to equality of results, he might be called an egalitarian, since his views of the just man and the just city entail satisfaction with one's own position. Therefore, if a person is contended, all his real needs are satisfied. Thus, non-egalitarianism of means and egalitarianism of ends are acceptable.
