Why is inequality a bad thing?
Scroll to see replies
When you're the one being treated unfairly, you begin to see why inequality is such a bad thing.
Inequality of opportunity is bad since it gets in the way of social mobility and hence ultimately harmful to society as a whole (next great physicist does not get to university because the cost is astronomical and no support exists for example); individual success ideally should not be dependent on anything but their talent and hardwork.
Inequality of outcome however is a good thing and attempts to fix this is misguided and moronic, if two people have been given same/ comparable level of opportunity to succeed and one succeeds while another fails, that is completely justified and not a social issue. After all for society to function someone needs to work in low skills/ manual job.
That being said, overall wealth is a greater issue than inequality. I would much rather live in a deeply unequal society where an average person earns $60k per annum than in an extremely equal society where an average person earns $30k per annum.
Inequality of outcome however is a good thing and attempts to fix this is misguided and moronic, if two people have been given same/ comparable level of opportunity to succeed and one succeeds while another fails, that is completely justified and not a social issue. After all for society to function someone needs to work in low skills/ manual job.
That being said, overall wealth is a greater issue than inequality. I would much rather live in a deeply unequal society where an average person earns $60k per annum than in an extremely equal society where an average person earns $30k per annum.
Depends what you mean by inequality. I believe in equality of political power and equality of opportunity.
Original post by Sanctimonious
Not true. Humans by their very nature are competitive with one another.
Original post by Sanctimonious
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.
It's also a fact of life that we're all going to die, yet people still try to lower the number that die too early.
Original post by The Socktor
.
It's also a fact of life that we're all going to die, yet people still try to lower the number that die too early.
It's also a fact of life that we're all going to die, yet people still try to lower the number that die too early.
Yeah but nobody tries to stop death because its inevitable.
Original post by Sanctimonious
Yeah but nobody tries to stop death because its inevitable.
I must have forgotten to put it in but you also violated Hume's Law in the first paragraph.
Anyway... people DO try to stop death - they just always ultimately fail. The point I'm trying to make is that just because something will always happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimise it.
Original post by The Socktor
I must have forgotten to put it in but you also violated Hume's Law in the first paragraph.
Anyway... people DO try to stop death - they just always ultimately fail. The point I'm trying to make is that just because something will always happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimise it.
Anyway... people DO try to stop death - they just always ultimately fail. The point I'm trying to make is that just because something will always happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimise it.
It'll never be minimised. Its human nature to be competitive which was the point. Where there is competition there is a desire to improve and do better. Humans are fundamentally capitalist naturally which is why capitalism works and socialism is a utopian ideology based on people being educated out of their natural ways to think in a way that is more focused about society.
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?
cos the people that suck up to inequality often say things life this.
Original post by Sanctimonious
It'll never be minimised. Its human nature to be competitive which was the point. Where there is competition there is a desire to improve and do better. Humans are fundamentally capitalist naturally which is why capitalism works and socialism is a utopian ideology based on people being educated out of their natural ways to think in a way that is more focused about society.
Human nature is not as simple as that. We are just as capable of being cooperative as we are of being competitive and of course nurture also plays a part in how often these traits show. I fail to see how humans are naturally capitalist when capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years.
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?
Why is anything 'moral' or immoral'? What I'm getting at is that any political ideology, including the one you might promote, makes an appeal to morals, i.e. makes a claim as to how things 'ought' to be. The problem is we don't all share the same moral values and so we're never all going to agree on how society should be organised.
Original post by Sanctimonious
It'll never be minimised. Its human nature to be competitive which was the point. Where there is competition there is a desire to improve and do better. Humans are fundamentally capitalist naturally which is why capitalism works and socialism is a utopian ideology based on people being educated out of their natural ways to think in a way that is more focused about society.
Capitalism is only the latest of many different forms of social organisation and has in fact only been a dominating social and economic system for a few hundred years; slave-based societies and tribute-based societies have lasted for thousands and the form of society we have evolved with, hunter-gathering communities, has been around for a few millions years. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that humans are fundamentally capitalist 'naturally' given what I've just pointed out. The fact is that while capitalism dominates so we are required to behave in ways which are consistent with the demands of that capitalist system, regardless of how far it is in tune with our actual human needs and values.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by hello101010
Clearly that's a lie
I think a statement is only really a lie where the person making the statement believes it to be false.
I'm not so sure about a person making a true statement which they believe to be false. I guess under these circumstances they would be both lying and yet still making a true statement.
Original post by Axiomasher
Why is anything 'moral' or immoral'? What I'm getting at is that any political ideology, including the one you might promote, makes an appeal to morals, i.e. makes a claim as to how things 'ought' to be. The problem is we don't all share the same moral values and so we're never all going to agree on how society should be organised.
Exactly. You have the correct starting point: "we don't all share the same moral values and so we're never all going to agree on how society should be organised." Why, therefore, do we base our political system on the pretext that the particular groups I mentioned in the OP (politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals) have the right to promote political ideologies as the 'correct' one for organizing society, and to implement those moral systems for everybody else?
Original post by Axiomasher
Capitalism is only the latest of many different forms of social organisation and has in fact only been a dominating social and economic system for a few hundred years; slave-based societies and tribute-based societies have lasted for thousands and the form of society we have evolved with, hunter-gathering communities, has been around for a few millions years. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that humans are fundamentally capitalist 'naturally' given what I've just pointed out. The fact is that while capitalism dominates so we are required to behave in ways which are consistent with the demands of that capitalist system, regardless of how far it is in tune with our actual human needs and values.
Surely you can see that the benefits that capitalism has delivered, including the lifting out of poverty of hundreds of millions of people and improvements in the standards of living for most people that would be inconceivable to previous generations (including such globally pervasive innovations as the Internet and the interconnectedness brought about by globalization), as well as the reduction of the intrusion of state and other collective institutions in our lives, has been a vehicle for the individual to be able to act freely and thus discover their nature.
I think it's erroneous for anybody to base an argument on human nature anyway - the fact that there's still a debate over whether or not humans are "naturally" engaging in certain behaviors is demonstrable of why every individual ought to be free to discover their own nature, and why nobody should presume that they can control or dominate another individual on the basis of what they presume is natural (e.g. people are naturally violent, or economically determined to act in certain ways - for one I can't see how the "capitalist system" can force demands of people - therefore they need to be organized using the state or communes).
(edited 9 years ago)
I have a question for the OP:
Ary you annoyed by the fact that contemporary historians consider you a mere biographer compared to a great writer like Tacitus whose Annals (along with Cassius Dio) are now an established part of our understanding of the Roman Republic under the Emperors.
*wink*wink*wink*
Ary you annoyed by the fact that contemporary historians consider you a mere biographer compared to a great writer like Tacitus whose Annals (along with Cassius Dio) are now an established part of our understanding of the Roman Republic under the Emperors.
*wink*wink*wink*
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Because it's unfair. Simple
The question is, what makes it bad? How is it fair that I am tall and scrawny and my friend is big and buff? How is it fair that even with good nutrition and regular workouts, I struggle to put on weight whereas his workouts are irregular, his nutrition sucks and eats whatever he wants, yet he looks like a spartan? How's that fair? Is this sort of unfairness wrong or bad? Should the government order my friend to not look so good, so I would feel better?
No matter how you look at it, people will always be unequal, one way or another. The luck of being born with certain talents and genes is every bit as same as the luck of being born into a family, who worked hard and enjoyed success in the form of wealth and affluence. In both these cases, the person did not choose his family, where he was born into nor did he choose his talents or his genes.
Original post by Suetonius
Exactly. You have the correct starting point: "we don't all share the same moral values and so we're never all going to agree on how society should be organised." Why, therefore, do we base our political system on the pretext that the particular groups I mentioned in the OP (politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals) have the right to promote political ideologies as the 'correct' one for organizing society, and to implement those moral systems for everybody else?
It's hard to imagine a political system of any scale which does not by some degree involve politicians, bureaucrats and intellectuals debating over how things should be arranged and on what basis.
Without getting too wishy-washy philosophical, there are several real, measurable negative effects associated with economic inequality including higher crime rates, lower economic growth, poor health, mental illness and social problems such as high teenage birth rates, low levels of trust and high rates of drug use. It is a highly undesirable state of affairs no matter how you look at it.
Original post by Suetonius
Surely you can see that the benefits that capitalism has delivered, including the lifting out of poverty of hundreds of millions of people and improvements in the standards of living for most people that would be inconceivable to previous generations (including such globally pervasive innovations as the Internet and the interconnectedness brought about by globalization), as well as the reduction of the intrusion of state and other collective institutions in our lives, has been a vehicle for the individual to be able to act freely and thus discover their nature.
I think it's erroneous for anybody to base an argument on human nature anyway - the fact that there's still a debate over whether or not humans are "naturally" engaging in certain behaviors is demonstrable of why every individual ought to be free to discover their own nature, and why nobody should presume that they can control or dominate another individual on the basis of what they presume is natural (e.g. people are naturally violent, or economically determined to act in certain ways - for one I can't see how the "capitalist system" can force demands of people - therefore they need to be organized using the state or communes).
I think it's erroneous for anybody to base an argument on human nature anyway - the fact that there's still a debate over whether or not humans are "naturally" engaging in certain behaviors is demonstrable of why every individual ought to be free to discover their own nature, and why nobody should presume that they can control or dominate another individual on the basis of what they presume is natural (e.g. people are naturally violent, or economically determined to act in certain ways - for one I can't see how the "capitalist system" can force demands of people - therefore they need to be organized using the state or communes).
That capitalism represents something of an advance on previous modes of production is actually orthodox Marxism but that doesn't make the alienation, exploitation and inequalities of capitalism go away.
I agree that appeals to 'human nature' are a minefield. As a matter of scientific fact, however, we humans have spent 99% of our existence as a species evolving within a context of mutually sustaining hunter-gatherer communities and only in the last few thousand years has technological change brought about social and economic arrangements which have led us away from that.
As for capitalism forcing its demands on us - yes, capitalism amounts to the systematic and coercive monopolisation of the earth and its resources, and thus the means of production generated through such resources, by a capitalist class. Everyone else must wage-labour for the capitalist class or compete for an opportunity to join that class.
Original post by Sanctimonious
It'll never be minimised. Its human nature to be competitive which was the point. Where there is competition there is a desire to improve and do better. Humans are fundamentally capitalist naturally which is why capitalism works and socialism is a utopian ideology based on people being educated out of their natural ways to think in a way that is more focused about society.
Humans (on average) are fundamentally selfish when they do not share the same interests of those around them. That is why unregulated capitalism drives wealth concentration, exploitation, myopic operating practices, and inequality and all its associated social ills. Capitalism has only existed for a blip in the lifespan of Homo sapiens.
Humans evolved our social behaviour in relatively small groups (with a higher than average degree of relatedness than you'd find among populations now) that were far more similar to socialism than capitalism. In such early homonin societies a capitalist, that is, an individual who laid claim to resources, tools, say, and allowed others to use them for his benefit while he did no work himself, would be ejected from the group as a parasite. As would an individual that was selfish to the detriment of the rest of the group more generally. That is ignoring that such an individual could never exist in the first place as no one individual would could accrue a disproportionate amount of the group's resources without reprisal. Early hominin societies worked together, provided for each other, and lived or died as a result of their cooperation.
The degree of inequality in societies changes all the time, just google any graph of Gini coefficients over time. Of course it can be minimised. There isn't a choice between no inequality and ridiculous inequality. It's simply a question of how much inequality we are willing to tolerate. Survey after survey shows the British publish think our society is far too unequal, even after establishing that they think some level of inequality should exist.
edit: as a side note, the internet was developed by the US government and research groups it funded at universities, and the world wide web was invented by a publicly funded British scientist at CERN. Capitalism usually has very little to do with technological innovation, it's more important in funding people who want to develop and apply existing knowledge and tech that was more often than not discovered/invented with public money.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 ?
