Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is equality dangerous? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I should preface this by admitting I am just an ordinary sixth former, interested in ideas, so I'm expecting there will be many faults to the beliefs I hold, but I'd like to debate them nonetheless.

    Within my school, and arguably much of the West, the idea of total equality has become incredibly popular. I'm not sure what type of equality the many refer to, whether economic or social etc. But is total equality self deception as we live in a world fundamentally based on inequality? As Nietzsche claims, there is a higher man and then there is the herd mentality. If we are to aim to achieve total equality will we drive those "higher" men down to a level of mediocrity whilst doing so? I am aware that achievement can be largely based on upbringing and environmental experience however, is it in favour of progress to have total economic or social equality?

    I apologise for the rambling. I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the drive for 'equality' is the drive for a lowest common denominator in achievement and capability. Just equality of opportunity to all things.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You're dangerous.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Not srs. But no equality isn't dangerous.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To have equality defined incorrectly is dangerous.
    e.g. that all women, men, disabled, sick, etc. must be analyzed to the same status quo.

    To have inadequate response to inequality is dangerous.
    e.g. to attack and disable those that had benefited from inequality

    To not be able to analyze equality is dangerous.
    e.g. providing a single response or false answer to a forum question.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Equality of opportunity is good

    Equality of circumstance is evil
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why it would be, it gives everyone a fair opportunity
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking as someone with an a-level in economics: total equality of income and wealth have 2 main disadvantages. (1) it disincentivises people to work hard and strive to be better than everyone else and that drive is a large component of enterprise which is one of the 4 factors of production (the others are land i.e. natural resources, labour and capital i.e. stuff that makes other stuff as opposed to money). This eventually leads to economic stagnation and possibly recession. (2) other people may be couch potatoes while others may work very hard so when they both get the same, that's pretty unfair. Total equality of income means everyone gets the same, not everyone gets the same per unit of effort which would be much fairer and wouldn't have the 1st disadvantage to the same extent..
    However, massive wealth inequality such as that in america (which is brilliantly depicted in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKK...nel=politizane) are also very bad because it concentrates a lot of the spending and political power among a very small group of people whilst they are allowed to screw over everyone else. So inequality in general isn't inherently a bad thing... but it definitely can be.
    From a more social perspective, I believe in equality of opportunity. Where everyone starts off life being able to do anything they dream of within reason (for clarification, it isn't within reason that i'll win the olympic 100m) and where those opportunities are guaranteed by the state. I also think that by taking certain choices in life (such as committing heinous crimes like murder) you waive you right to some of those opportunities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrsuperguy)
    Speaking as someone with an a-level in economics: total equality of income and wealth have 2 main disadvantages. (1) it disincentivises people to work hard and strive to be better than everyone else and that drive is a large component of enterprise which is one of the 4 factors of production (the others are land i.e. natural resources, labour and capital i.e. stuff that makes other stuff as opposed to money). This eventually leads to economic stagnation and possibly recession. (2) other people may be couch potatoes while others may work very hard so when they both get the same, that's pretty unfair. Total equality of income means everyone gets the same, not everyone gets the same per unit of effort which would be much fairer and wouldn't have the 1st disadvantage to the same extent..
    However, massive wealth inequality such as that in america (which is brilliantly depicted in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKK...nel=politizane) are also very bad because it concentrates a lot of the spending and political power among a very small group of people whilst they are allowed to screw over everyone else. So inequality in general isn't inherently a bad thing... but it definitely can be.
    From a more social perspective, I believe in equality of opportunity. Where everyone starts off life being able to do anything they dream of within reason (for clarification, it isn't within reason that i'll win the olympic 100m) and where those opportunities are guaranteed by the state. I also think that by taking certain choices in life (such as committing heinous crimes like murder) you waive you right to some of those opportunities.
    Thank you,
    I guess I was thinking more about the measure of inequality through the Inequality Adjusted HDMI and whether or not a large % inequality is necessarily a bad thing if shown to have elevated levels for those at the bottom compared to very high levels of wealth. And I guess then the distinction between pure market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs needs to be made.

    Socially, I would agree that the idea of equality of opportunity is always something I've favoured. I'm interested, how would you recommend going about achieving this? Would this mean that everyone gets an equal level of schooling and how would such be possible or compatible to different types of schools operating with different results such as grammars/private etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shameful_burrito)
    You're dangerous.

    Spoiler:
    Show



    Not srs. But no equality isn't dangerous.


    I'm happy to learn if you'd like to expand on that in more detail..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OutsideOfItAll)
    Thank you,
    I guess I was thinking more about the measure of inequality through the Inequality Adjusted HDMI and whether or not a large % inequality is necessarily a bad thing if shown to have elevated levels for those at the bottom compared to very high levels of wealth. And I guess then the distinction between pure market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs needs to be made.

    Socially, I would agree that the idea of equality of opportunity is always something I've favoured. I'm interested, how would you recommend going about achieving this? Would this mean that everyone gets an equal level of schooling and how would such be possible or compatible to different types of schools operating with different results such as grammars/private etc.
    My word, that is a great example of a simple question with a not so simple answer. I wish I were, but I'm afraid I'm just not qualified to answer that question. The idea of equality of opportunity is very simple in theory but unfortunately gets to be very complicated when you start considering different regions across a country as smaller, sub-divided local economies with their own local markets and price levels and unemployment levels and so on which means you have to consider policies such as minimum wage on a region by region basis which very quickly gets very complex. That is, if you try and give everyone equality of opportunity in a very capitalist economy as opposed to say a socialist one, the reason being that socialism institutionalises the process of getting out exactly what you put in rather than hoping the free market plays in your favour. I know that a lot of people don't think socialism works in the long run but I can think off the top of my head, of no other way to simplify this issue. Though I'm all ears for any suggestions.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OutsideOfItAll)
    I'm happy to learn if you'd like to expand on that in more detail..
    Why do you think equality is dangerous?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shameful_burrito)
    Why do you think equality is dangerous?
    I don't think I've framed my question particularly well.

    To begin with I don't be believe I've stated that it's my personal view, it was a question. A question that is relative to the type of equality.
    I mentioned economic and social equality but I'll be more precise.

    Can equality of outcome, circumstance or an aim for equality of income/position be dangerous?

    For instance, when taken to extremes (this is a radical example and not generalisable of course) such as through social engineering by the Khmer Rouge in attempt to make all people equal, or even attempts by socialism/communism to attempt total equality.

    For instance, if equality under law translates to natural inequality of position would it be more unequal to engineer equality?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Only true equality is for everyone to respect each other.

    how would others look at above statement?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Equality of opportunity or of outcome are not the same thing, it is the latter that the loony left mean by it. In Mao's Comunist China the entire population had to dress in a State uniform and cycle to a State job in as close to a classless society as you can get. Equality was very much the rule, the Shadow Chancellor is a lifelong admirer of such political system. Everyone was equally pisspoor and hungry, on top of deprived of any personal freedoms but bluddy equal they all were.

    Then Hong Kong popped up in all its western-induced glory, an absolute economic miracle that would have made China blush weren't they so red already. As a political and economic system, HG was the absolute mirror image of Communist egalitarianism. Now China have had their own economic miracle, in not too distant a future the emergence of a middle-class and overall improvements in education and living standards will bring democracy about. All that having put to rest the notion that we are all a robotic army and embracing equality of opportunity as the only practical one to aspire to as well.

    So yes, artificially induced equality is a bad thing for progress. We'd better celebrate our differences instead.

    Some people may not like it because it leaves them behind at the races, as if expecting to be carried on society's shoulders to a flat podium where everyone gets a gold medal. They are the ones Mrs. T was addressing when famously saying there is no such thing. It's not entirely their fault really, such expectations are widely peddled at schools and in the media these days. Political operators of the populist type too, including many old die-hards of a bygone era and ideology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Only true equality is for everyone to respect each other.

    how would others look at above statement?
    I'd argue that respecting each other is important but that there shouldn't be equal respect for ideas.

    And surely that's still dependent on how you define equality. If everyone respected eachother but there were still high levels of income inequality, would you consider us all equal?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    Equality of opportunity or of outcome are not the same thing, it is the latter that the loony left mean by it. In Mao's Comunist China the entire population had to dress in a State uniform and cycle to a State job in as close to a classless society as you can get. Equality was very much the rule, the Shadow Chancellor is a lifelong admirer of such political system. Everyone was equally pisspoor and hungry, on top of deprived of any personal freedoms but bluddy equal they all were.

    Then Hong Kong popped up in all its western-induced glory, an absolute economic miracle that would have made China blush weren't they so red already. As a political and economic system, HG was the absolute mirror image of Communist egalitarianism. Now China have had their own economic miracle, in not too distant a future the emergence of a middle-class and overall improvements in education and living standards will bring democracy about. All that having put to rest the notion that we are all a robotic army and embracing equality of opportunity as the only practical one to aspire to as well.

    So yes, artificially induced equality is a bad thing for progress. We'd better celebrate our differences instead.

    Some people may not like it because it leaves them behind at the races, as if expecting to be carried on society's shoulders to a flat podium where everyone gets a gold medal. They are the ones Mrs. T was addressing when famously saying there is no such thing. It's not entirely their fault really, such expectations are widely peddled at schools and in the media these days. Political operators of the populist type too, including many old die-hards of a bygone era and ideology.
    I agree with you on the difference between equality of opportunity and outcome. Would you argue that equality of opportunity should be furthered regardless of outcome?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As a side note, unfortunately going for 'equality' is cool nowadays and is motivated by advertising or increasing public relations kinda thing.

    Actual equality is good though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    As a side note, unfortunately going for 'equality' is cool nowadays and is motivated by advertising or increasing public relations kinda thing.

    Actual equality is good though.
    It's interesting what you say about advertising. I'd have to agree. What would actual equality be to you then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OutsideOfItAll)
    It's interesting what you say about advertising. I'd have to agree. What would actual equality be to you then?
    personally it isn't along the lines of stripping everything from the world and redistributing in equal amounts to everyone, but more so of equal opportunities. Atleast then life may seem fairer as how much an individual can gain is down to themselves mostly. Although maybe eventually the same cycle would repeat, with, by chance, some get wealthy and then provide opportunities to specific people. But hypothetically speaking giving all the option to accomplish anything others are are able to do is it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.