Philosophy Now Forum

I want to try to get to the basic principles of things this year, the kernel at the core of a concept, the idea within the idea. I think the process can only be done through reflection, discussion and so on (hey that's why I am here).

One of the areas I wanted to discuss is equality.

It is a noble ideal that appeals to us all but more and more I am coming to mistrust it and mistrust those that pursue it. Why?

Because I think I have seen the idea behind the idea and so I want to share it and get feedback:

Basically equality is not possible in an environment of riches. We all know that if we are all rich then someone is inevitably richer and thus we are unequal again. The only real sense that we equality can tangibly be achieved, ie: achieved in reality, is if we all have nothing.

The idea behind the idea of equality is: poverty. The pursuit of equality is the pursuit of poverty.

You may want to investigate Habermas on it...

Why the extremes, Wootah?

Absolute equality is obviously impossible in reality. But we can have more or less equality. Why not strive for more rather than less?

This is nonsense. The only way we could all have nothing would be if every resource on the planet was completely depleted, in which case we'd all be dead anyway. Surely somebody would have something and we would be just as unequal as in the case of all being rich.

The concepts of riches and poverty are relative and rest upon unequal distribution of wealth. More equality means less riches for the rich and less poverty for the poor. The unattainable state of absolute equality would mean no poverty and no riches.

equality is not possible among individuals...

of course submitting to the benevolent government dictators to remove every shred of individual humanity to ensure equal misery among worker units is the only solution...

-Imp

How are you defining equality? Are you only referring to economic equality?

In all senses of the word I think equality leads to poverty. Spiritual, mental and economic.

So you think that equality before the law (one of the three common political philosophy conceptions of equality) leads to poverty?

I think equality is a siren's song and equality before the law sings loudly. Do you think equality before the law, in practical reality, happens?

How is it easiest to have equality before the law? Is it easier to have laws that defend rights or is it easier to have one law that says you have no rights? Now you can see how, in practical reality, an implementation of equality before the law can only be an implementation of poverty, no rights.

That does not mean that people that argue for rights based upon equality before the law are conscious of where their actions are leading. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But Wootah, there is never going to be true equality. It is impossible as we are all individuals. What liberals want is to make everyone have a chance at pulling themselves up from the depths of poverty if they have the desire. That doesn't mean that everyone will have the desire. It just means that there is a chance. What is wrong with that? Even God gives everyone a chance to seek salvation.

As you seem to be talking about quality in the normative sense rather than whether it actually exists within society it's irrelevant what happens in practical terms.



Are you saying that because it's easier to have a law that gives no one rights that we should do that or it's what is actually done? You're position isn't clear to me so maybe you could explain.



You've not made any convincing case for where the quest for equality leads to.

Hi Wootah ,

I think the problem I am having with your stance is that you seem to want to "manufacture" Inequality....in some insane attempt to stave off poverty in a very backward "witch doctor" type of way. It is almost as if you want to manufacture poor people in order to sacrifice them to the "god of wealth" in order you that your "crops" will flourish. I know I am making your stance out to be archaic but I have not heard a rational justification as to why would not only condone inequality but you want to put a system in place that would dramatically add more humans to the "poverty" pile in order to tip the scale of inequality even further.

Your premise of ' if we all are equal then we all must be poor' is not even a rational statement. Do you really think there could ever be true equality with the way human nature is? Don't you see that just by simply being born beautiful makes you "wealthier" than your ugly counterpart? Life is easier for beautiful people. Nothing will change that...it's a fact. Life is easier for gifted people...nothing will change that. Does that mean that someone will have a bad life if they don't have those things? No. They have other gifts...hidden gifts...gifts that may bring equality in other ways. Ways you could not imagine.

What I am saying is to make others gifts abound to the best of their abilities. This does not make us equal in the same gifts...only in the joyful celebration of diverse gifts that only adds to everyone's well being. Think about it...a person who takes pride in his/her gift of teaching skills (for example) and strives to be the best... deserves compensation just as any other over achiever....like CEO's. To take their wages in order to shower ceo's with bountiful profits the likes of which they could never spend in a lifetime just seems like voodoo throw the virgin into the volcano tactics. It is akin to some dysfunctional way of thinking that makes for a dangerous environment. This is the reason behind so much crime in our society. It's because people can't comprehend the injustice of it all and the sense of hopelessness your voodoo/magic shit brings.

You are perpetuating the hopelessness with your silly thoughts of Doom regarding equality. It is simply demons in your mind and nothing more. Replace them with reason and kindness and you will know sanity and fear will leave you....as if by magic.

I think my system would decrease poverty. Inequality is only combated on the individual level. Mostly each individual has to combat their narcissism and most social ills will be lessened.

Yay for arguing my case.


And now you get to what happens when we stop pursuing equality: 'only in the joyful celebration of diverse gifts that only adds to everyone's well being'.

I am actually defending your silly thoughts most of the time. You just don't know the foundations that allow you to be you are being attacked.

Despite which what do you think of the idea behind the idea. The only means of equality is for everyone to have nothing. I think that is quite blind-siding when you realise it.

Reality speaks against your theory, Wootah.

On the whole, Sweden in the seventies was probably the most equal country the world has ever seen. Heaven on earth it was not, but we had the world's highest standard of living as well as the world's highest and most progressive taxes. There was no homeless people in the streets and almost no luxury cars either. A top CEO earned ten times what a factory worker earned. Today we have lots of luxury cars in the streets and plenty of homeless people, and a Swedish top CEO earns 40-50 times what a factory worker earns.

If by "all being poor" you mean nobody being able to afford a Ferrari or a Porsche, I'm all for it.

Culturally and spiritually, I'll just mention one thing. We had two channels of state television completely free from commercials. That was it. Each channel aired one American crime show a week, so you could perhaps watch Baretta on friday and Kojak on saturday. At the time, I really wanted more channels and more American crime shows on TV. Today we have any number of TV-channels and you can easily watch American crime shows 24 hours a day, complete with commercial breaks. The total ammount of quality content haven't increased much, and it's buried beneath so much more mindless drivel now. Banning commercial TV seems unthinkable today, but I wouldn't mind, actually.

No where have I argued for poverty, my whole thread is actually designed to show how not to pursue poverty. In fact your Sweden example highlights my point. The pursuit of equality in Sweden created more poverty. The Law of untended consequences is probably occurring.

Not at all. I believe that it was an ideological move away from equality as a desired goal that created more poverty and more riches. The wealthy are wealthier in Sweden today, but many are worse off too. Sweden has become more like America. As I stated before, moving towards equality is moving away from both poverty and riches.