Why is inequality a bad thing?
Why is it immoral for one man to starve to death while another man lives like a king? Is there really any moral justification for an economic, social, and political system to be based on a principle of redistribution in order to bring about parity, let alone for one to be created according to the egalitarian central planning of politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals and other social engineers?
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I believe that everyone has the right to a basic living but inequality is one of the main drivers of progress in our society (not to eradicate it but rather to achieve on an individual basis)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because it's unfair. Simple
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Because it's unfair. Simple
Why isn't it fair? What do you mean by the use of that term?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Suetonius
Why isn't it fair?
Because through no fault of your own, you either have a lot or don't. I don't understand why you need that explaining?
No one is better than anyone else. We are all imperfect, stupid humans
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by karmacrunch
Clearly that's a lie
Original post by hello101010
Clearly that's a lie
No it's not. Just because that statement doesn't occur as it should in the world today... does not mean that it is not true.
Original post by Suetonius
Why is it immoral for one man to starve to death while another man lives like a king? Is there really any moral justification for an economic, social, and political system to be based on a principle of redistribution in order to bring about parity, let alone for one to be created according to the egalitarian central planning of politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals and other social engineers?
Nothing wrong with inequality, in fact it's a good thing (look at the USSR)
What's wrong with this country (and namely the US), is that social mobility is next to impossible.
I was born into a working class household and got decent grades for my particular school, but if we're taking independents into account I did much less impressively.
There's also the small matter of Cronyism. I live in London, and for the great jobs, it REALLY is who you know, rather than what accolades you have. My cousin's CV stands: C in Business GCSE, C in PE GCSE, and he's working some top job in the city.
so I guess to sum up my point is.
I think we should be socialists/equal.....all the way up until the age of 16, that way nobody has a head start in life, and meritocracy can flourish
ps. Not that I'm saying you Public school kids don't work hard, of course you do, It's just you CLEARLY have an advantage over us, -ahem-, 'Commoners'
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by karmacrunch
No it's not. Just because that statement doesn't occur as it should in the world today... does not mean that it is not true.
So are you saying that even though the evidence shows some people are better than others, they're not actually?
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Because through no fault of your own, you either have a lot or don't. I don't understand why you need that explaining?
What does that have to do with the disparity between the two individuals? If one man has a lot he is affluent, if another man does not have a lot he is in poverty. Would it be unfair for one man to remain affluent, or to get more affluent, if the poor man is lifted out of poverty?
Original post by hello101010
So are you saying that even though the evidence shows some people are better than others, they're not actually?
Yes, which evidence shows that some people are better than others?
Original post by Suetonius
Why is it immoral for one man to starve to death while another man lives like a king? Is there really any moral justification for an economic, social, and political system to be based on a principle of redistribution in order to bring about parity, let alone for one to be created according to the egalitarian central planning of politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals and other social engineers?
Inequality (of outcome) is not inherently immoral, however that has nothing to do with one man starving while the other lives like a king. Social welfare is not designed to bring about complete equality - it's designed to uphold the basic rights of people to health, food, education, shelter, etc.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by karmacrunch
Yes, which evidence shows that some people are better than others?
Some people work to cure diseases, others rape and kill?
Original post by hello101010
Clearly that's a lie
The reason no-one is objectively better than anyone else is because there's no objective measure of human quality. You can be stronger, smarter, taller and sexier, but that only makes you 'better' in a society which values these things. That's what is meant by the statement that 'everyone is equal' or 'no-one is better than anyone else'.
Original post by karmacrunch
No one is better than anyone else. We are all imperfect, stupid humans
Not true. Humans by their very nature are competitive with one another.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Because it's unfair. Simple
That's life. Its always worked that way. You either accept it for what it is or continue to moan about something that will never change.
There is always going to be inequality; whether or not that's a good thing I cannot answer.
The inequality that we are currently living in, however, is indefinitely a bad thing. The distribution of wealth in this country and in America is absolutely disgusting.
The inequality that we are currently living in, however, is indefinitely a bad thing. The distribution of wealth in this country and in America is absolutely disgusting.
Original post by PythianLegume
Inequality is not inherently immoral, however that has nothing to do with one man starving while the other lives like a king. Social welfare is not designed to bring about complete equality - it's designed to uphold the basic rights of people to health, food, education, shelter, etc.
Ok, those are good points, but my use of the two individuals was merely to demonstrate that it's a question of parity (and given that society is a complex system of individuals then it's important to reduce it to the most accurate level I think). It's not meant to be literal.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by hello101010
Some people work to cure diseases, others rape and kill?
Yes but as humans, no human is better than any other human.
Some might do awful things, as you said above e.g. rape & kill, but if you strip that all away you have is a human. One who is no different from anyone else. You might say that someone is evil for hurting someone but they are not lesser beings as such. That is from people abusing rights to make them feel bigger, they aren't... they are just like anyone else.
I do understand your point though.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
