Can society every be truly fair and equal?

Scroll to see replies

Equality and fairness tend to go hand in hand. I don't think full equality is possible unless we renounce a lot of our freedoms, but we can certainly do more to allow for a more equal society. Fairness is clearly a big part of society, if the government is seen as treating people unfairly then it's entire authority is put into question. People clearly are not equally capable, but we should make sure they are equally respected as human beings by providing basic rights and entitlements. On the notion of capability however I don't think it's right to say that people get what they deserve, plenty of people are unlucky from what they born into (socio-economic factors, genetic factors and suchlike), so the government should ensure there are plenty of opportunities for those unlucky people. One thing I think is very important is education; if you don't do well you may struggle to catch up, so smaller class sizes and more extra tuition, as well as more investment in learning support (for those with disabilities).

Reply 21

Joluk

No i don't believe so, and the whole artificial equality can only go so far. Just look at the USSR, it was drummed into them at school for 70 years that everyone is equal and that they should always look to society's benefit. Unfortunately that didn't stop most people in positions of power being corrupt and looking to get one over on each other.

Human nature never changes. Which is why pure socialism can never work.

Reply 22

Time Tourist

Joluk

Human nature never changes.

That is the premise which the left cannot accept. As far as they are concerned humans are plastic blank slates that you can shape however you like, they have no innate nature. They regard everything up until now as a mistake, even family life, it was all bourgeois ideology which must be destroyed by whatever means (historically brutal and violent means). As far as they are concerned nothing exists except that which can be reduced to economic materialism.

The results of this belief were an utter disaster, a nihilistic genocidal disaster. All done in the name of universal love and kindness of course.

Reply 23

Gremlins

Time Tourist

why did you pick the family as an example of 'human nature' when there's so much variety in family structures across the world? There's nothing 'natural' about the nuclear family.

Joluk

My 2c on equality human nature: it probably does exist, in some way, although it doesn't dictate as much as the right would like it to - just saying "oh X is human nature so there's no point trying to change everything" is just an attempt to disguise a normative agenda. The important thing is that people aren't innately 'bad' any more than they're innately good - what we need are institutions that encourage the 'good' side of human nature to come through rather than the 'bad' side (Gerry Cohen's last book, Why not Socialism? elaborates on this comparing a group of people on a camping trip to how they'd interact with each other in the normal economy). Absolute egalitarianism is probably impossible, but to use this to claim supporting egalitarianism wrong is a fallacy.

Reply 24

Time Tourist

Gremlins

why did you pick the family as an example of 'human nature' when there's so much variety in family structures across the world? There's nothing 'natural' about the nuclear family.

Sort of proves my point really doesn't it...

How tragic.

No more or no less natural than the commune then eh?

Reply 25

Gremlins

Time Tourist

Sort of proves my point really doesn't it...

How tragic.

Doesn't prove your point at all - there *is* an enormous diversity in the way kinship and gender roles are structured. I can't be arsed to role out a load of examples, but for your browsing pleasure here's The World Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, Volume 1 which hints at kinship structures. The Mosuo have no concept of marriage at all, and the vast majority of their children don't know who their fathers are. Meanwhile, of course, in this country plenty of people are born outside of normal family structures. "Natural" should really only be used to describe what's going on - I fear you're using it to advance your own agenda.

Reply 26

Time Tourist

Gremlins

hah my own agenda oooh such an evil one!

I don't really know what your point is though in relation my to my initial post?

For it is true that the communists saw the family as bourgeois ideology, as opposed to something that goes back to the very beginning of our civilization, and they did want to crush it though use of force, and remake society in their own vision.

Reply 27

Gremlins

Time Tourist

hah my own agenda oooh such an evil one!

lolz?

I don't really know what your point is though in relation my to my initial post?

You: The left can't accept that human nature exists. They even think the family is just a bourgeois conspiracy!
Me: Actually there's a huge range of different types of family; the nuclear family isn't natural
You: You've just proved my point about lefties. How tragic.
Me: Facts countering your claim.
You: I don't really know what your point is though in relation my to my initial post

My point, ofc, being that claims about 'human nature' can't be used to justify your conservatism.

Reply 28

Cathy23884

Labour, and some other political parties aim to create a fair and equal society. But is this possible?

As posters have mentioned, it kinda depends on your definition of ‘fair and equal’.

One nice way of defining fair and equal is here: http://www.centrist.org.uk/blog/?p=183.

It defines ‘fairness and equality’ in terms of trying to find out what people should be equal in. As im-so-academic and EarthlyLove said, people differ in intelligence, strength and morals, gender ect. so you need a deffinition that tells you what you should be equal in (voting, oppertunity etc).

But it is, at the end of the day, just a definition. All three main parties have been mocked by the Economist newspaper for backing up every policy decision with the words ‘we’re doing it because it’s fair’ (http://www.economist.com/node/16485338 ) – the Economist claimed that the word fairness was undefinable, and shouldn’t be used.

Do you believe human society is inherently unfair and unequal?

Given the centrist definition? No. Under their definition, (British) society is a measurably fairer than it was even 100 years ago. :p:

Are we naturally inclined to judge and discriminate, based on appearance or personality?

Yes, but this is not necessary a bad thing. If a candidate for a job has unbrushed hair and untucked shirt, that might imply to their potentail employer they are untidy in their work or unprofessional - and so they don't get the job. 'Possible untidyness' is a reasonable assumption on the part of the employer (it may not be true, but it is still reasonable). This IS discriminatory – but it is NOT morally wrong, it is just a statistical calculation on the part of the employer. The reason discrimination is such a big topic in politics is that some people use untrue and irrational statistical calculations to turn away applicants – for instance they might see someone of dark skin and turn them away because they (irrationally) associate dark skin and laziness. What is wrong here is NOT that the employer has discriminated, but that they have done so irrationally.

Can this only be achieved through heavy state intervention? Such as controlling our speech and actions. Does this create artificial equality, which only goes to deepen resentment and tension?

If one takes the ‘centrist’ viewpoint expressed above, then the answer is: unknown. On a different blog post (http://www.centrist.org.uk/blog/?p=125 ) they argue that, if you know what you want to be equal (for instance opportunity), then the difficulty for governments is to try and work out how to make laws that reduce the unequality in a way that screws up other aspects of life as little as possible. Control through speech and actions like an Orwell novel is probably not be needed....

Ditto certain ways to reduce inequality (like positive discrimination), which you allude to as ‘artificial equality’. In the long run, positive discrimination is probably unnecessary as racist members of society's irrational fears are continually being reduced through good education.

Or does humanity have the capacity to reach full fairness and equality, without state intervention?

No, it is likely laws to increase equality will always be needed in some form or other. There are always people who have less chances in life due to no fault of their own. There are a huge amount of ‘state interventions' to increase equality that we often overlook, not least laws to stop children having different starts in life: (the UN Children’s Rights Bill http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/files/uncrcchilldfriendlylanguage.pdf has a list of them). So free primary schools are in order to reduce equality, as are more resources for being a disabled child or poor (both part of the UN bill of rights article 28, 23, 26, 27). This could probably not be achieved unless it was by the state. (it’s difficult to think that charities could achieve this).

Just my 2 cents!

Reply 29

Lyonstt

Fundamentally I think this debate lies with human nature, and no human is the same. There will always be competitiveness, just look at attempts to recreate the perfect communist utopia, it never makes the final transition into equality.

Reply 30

member569366

Studies have shown that money brings happiness only in relative quantities: you can be as rich as you want, if your neighbors are richer, you'll probably be miserable. So an equal society would make people unhappy.

Reply 31

Saichu

Original post by rajandkwameali

It then comes to which form of equality is needed. Economic equality, IMO, no. as long as persons have the means to advance, then i don't see a problem. Equal legal rights, yes. The rule of law, yes. Equal opportunities, yes.

But is this restricted form of equality even possible? One can easily argue that economic equality is impossible unless all forms of inheritance are abolished - the mere possibility of moving up or down does not cut it, when someone already starts up or down. Similarly for equality of opportunity; people have more opportunities in practice if they are born into more connected branches of society. Heck, something similar even applies for legal rights.

Reply 32

rajandkwameali

They're the only worthy and practicable modes of equality.

Reply 33

Cathy23884

One can easily argue that economic equality is impossible unless all forms of inheritance are abolished - the mere possibility of moving up or down does not cut it.

I dunno about that - in a fair society shouldn't the chance of someone earning in the top 5% amount be 5/100, regardless of their parents earnings? so as long as a society could prove this happened, it would be 'fair'? but then this would mean that the 'possibility' does cut it?

It is possible I guess that no society could prove this without outlawing inheritance like you say, but I don't think this necassarily has to happen for the society to be fair?

but I dunno. I'm getting my maths from here: 'Differences in opportunity due to parental wealth' and i'm not sure if it's right. :confused:

Reply 34

rajandkwameali

I think only infantile minds care about fairness. Some life situations arise in which circumstances cannot be fair.

Reply 35

ANARCHY__

Original post by Glowy Amoeba

What if money doesn't exist?

Reply 36

Invictus_88

Original post by ANARCHY__

What if money doesn't exist?

Then physical possessions take their place.

Reply 37

AnarchistNutter

Original post by EarthlyLove

Why is equality such a noble goal? It's incredibly unscientific, people differ in intelligence, strength and morals; you will never change this, it's basic biology. Instead, it is wiser to specialize and discriminate so that the people are left unopposed so long as they don't harm others, and let their talents prosper, whilst the weak are left behind. Forced equality leads to incompetence as the strong are hindered and the weak are pushed up to levels where they cannot work or survive. Hierarchy is natural and inevitable, don't fight it, embrace it!

Original post by im so academic

Also known as Socialism. :rolleyes:

No, us humans are not equal.

Let me clarify that - e.g. we are not equal in terms of gender. I.e. are we all the same gender? No - we are different in terms of gender, therefore we are not equal in terms of gender.

This does NOT mean women shouldn't be given the same rights as men. Big difference. :rolleyes:

What is the point of banging on about biology? Socialists call for political and economic equality, equal rights and equal opportunities NOT genetic equality. Some people do talk nonsense when the concept of equality is brought up.

Original post by Invictus_88

Then physical possessions take their place.

In a barter economy, perhaps but not in a gift economy.