in society a, everyone is treated equally: “well”. if we could measure “goodness”, then the “goodness” per person would be 65/100. however, in society b, white people are treated “better”. everyone else is treated “well”. well would be 65/100 and better would be 80/100. like in the us, 60% would be white. so the average “goodness” would be 74/100. finally in society c everyone is treated “better”.
obviously, society c would be “better” than both a and b because there is more “goodness” overall. however, is b>a? or does the inequality make it worse? and why would the inequality make it worse?
i have been thinking about this for a while and i am still unsure. b is “better” in a sense, but it doesn’t sit right with me just because of the unfairness. and the inequality is also based on something you cannot control.
it also made me think about the fact that people are rewarded based on merit. and intelligent people tend to be more successful. but intelligence isn’t a trait you can control. isn’t that also unfair?
So basically you are asking whether
a.) average living standards for everyone equally
or
b.) average for some and good for others
In this form, purely from a numberical standpoint b.) is better since the overall wellness of humans in it is better than in a.)
However… thats purely from a numerical sense cause there is a plethora of nuance to the situation. First of all, i dont agree with your premise on injustice.
I would argue the exact reverse: (provided that it does not take anything away from you) if you look at others who have it better than you do, and your mind instantly jumps to injustice, then you are entitled and a very much problematic and toxic part of society.
This is why im gonna say that portraying the situation needs to be way more specific and nuanced cause some people living better than you do, yes: Might be injustice if they exploit you.
On the other hand it might be the exact reverse: It might be you who is an envious, toxic, entitled brat.
You could also argue the problem from a societal standpoint:
Is a society better if it forces uniform equality? Or is a society better if it allows the gifted to exceed?
And the answer to that one will be surprisingly: Neither.
Socialism forced insane levels of equality in east europe. If for any reason only one part of the town could be heated during winter, then nobody got heating so everyone could have equal treatment.
The result of this was essentially a class system where you were constrained and threatened at gun point to act out your role specific to your class.
On the other hand capitalism and similar systems that allow the better to freely exceed, have several times throughout history created such a large gap between the classes of society, that the entirety of it imploded. Nazi germany comes to mind and the prelude to adolf hitler.
The correct answer would be both in moderation: You allow some to exceed but you exert control over them so that they wont become something that people look at and want to reach for pitchforks.
At the same time, you do not encourage the narratives of those who are essentially parasites on society, who do nothing to improve their own situation but demand their living standards to increase and/or to be equal to those of the gifted.
The word treated implies you are doing something about it. You didn’t say they just fair better, you said they are actually treated better.
I like the analogy or parable or whatever you wanna call it about the employer that paid everybody the same no matter how long they worked, which had nothing to do with variables they could control. They all got enough for one day. The people that worked longer complained about it, but the one that paid them made sure everyone was equally taken care of (due to the fact that the only reason some worked less was because they didn’t have the opportunity to work as long as everyone who worked the longest). So the people who worked longer should’ve been happy about the employer’s generosity, and not worried so much about if everybody got the same. At least the employer wasn’t a stingy a-hole hoarding a fair day’s wage (even if you didn’t work a whole day) to himself.
But the parable wasn’t so much about economics or who deserves what. It’s about you should be as generous as the one you received generosity from… and has to do more with things like loving people despite their crap (like being an a-hole employer that hoards money and hikes up prices instead of paying people a fair day’s wage and not making life harder for them to afford essentials—because God loves them so much, and disciplines the ones he loves, they are going to feel it the most).
Some level of unfairness will always exist as perfection is an unattainable ideal. The goal and ideal is to create the best possible world for humanity that can be sustained.
With that being said, too much unfairness can be disastrous for society as a whole overtime where left unchallenged has the potential to destroy everything. Too much human misery you flirt with the very spark of chaos that eventually engulfs everything into total destruction.
The goal of any political economic body should be the reduction of general human suffering and misery where those that multiply both trifle with massive civilization collapse as a form of gambling.
Correct. But too much enforced equality will have the copy paste exact same consequence.
And truth to be told, there is a huge issue with the concept of “unfairness” in this context.
If i view people being better than me as “unfair” then the problem is simply me cause i am an entitled, envious, toxic fck.
To begin with, the entire topic of “being unable to cope with the idea that we all get dealt different hands and cards in life”… is incomprehensible to me.
Thats baseline reality.
If one cant accept basic axioms and facts like that, then they are unfit for life as a whole and THEY are in fact a problem that should be removed from society.
One can make an argument for reducing harm and keeping balance.
One cant make an argument for removing harm and creating an utopia.
We all know what that latter one results in.
If a majority of people cannot afford or have the very basics of life they’re of course going to be envious.
The hungry will be envious of those that have food and so on.
The important factor is we make sure a majority of people have the basics of life to be happy and successful. Give them those basics and the envy disappears.
Obviously.
But if the majority of the people are also forced to labor away for no benefit of their own while others are riding on their backs and freeloading, while the benevolent leaders hold a gun to their heads and brand them as counter revolutionaries if they speak up… we have been there too once or twice havent we?
The only path that ever seemed to function correctly (at least for a while before the balance was thrown off once again) was the middle road between the two.
Mitigate damage on the lower end, and also do not let the exceptional stray way too far and ahead of the rest.
We’re there now with an international cabal of parasitical capitalists, but under my communist society those individuals wouldn’t last very long within the inner political party structure. They would be rooted out very quickly.
I am all about creating a better new world as the current one sucks. Problem is everyone has disagreements on how.
Actually grit does better than intelligence and you can teach grit. And some people are being taught anti-grit, perhaps many and most. Money in the family also helps.
Well, if you mean there’s no unfairness (or fairness) in hard determinism, it depends who’s talking. If someone just punched me in the face but have no beef with me, they can’t fall back on ‘I can’t control things in a determined universe’, because I’m not angry about ultimate responsibiity, I’d be hating that person for what he is.
Same with systems. The system can’t use this as a defense. Individual perpetrators can’t. And of course, once they’ve gottent he feedback, they could change. If they don’t, well, they’re like that. We get to hate things like that.
So, I’m not sure what not being able to control as a criterion actually changes.
Because the attack is also determined. A serial killer can’t say be nice to me I was compelled to do those things. All others have to say is we are compelled to hate you for what you did and are. Ideas up in the sky can seem logical and reasonable. But once mouthed by someone in an interpersonal interaction with others, may not really work. I don’t think this one does. But a serial killer could scream at God. Why did you give me these compulsions? There it’s not problematic.
