tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post1472349333623397480..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": Moral Thinking in the Real WorldLester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-65970285620296652352012-01-09T00:25:03.075-06:002012-01-09T00:25:03.075-06:00Lester Hunt said: What they are thinking is that w...Lester Hunt said: What they are thinking is that wealth and income should not be "too unequal."<br /><br />Okay. I think I understand what that means (or at least I try to get into the mindset for a moment). Now: somebody should go and tell the OWS protestors about the concert pianist crisis in this country: the distribution of concert pianists is unfair; there should be FULL EQUALITY in concert pianist distribution: everybody should be able to become one if they want. That's how absurd this talk of "income equality" sounds to me. One of the supporting fallacies is that life is fair, or can be made fair. But it's not and cannot. Almost nobody can make a living as a concert pianist, that's not fair, either. But if somebody comes along with that kind of talent AND also has all the other qualities, then he should get a chance. I suppose the OWS protestors would then protest at his concerts, demanding that the government confiscate half his earnings, to give to the less successful pianists.Max Kuenkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12807026662107157577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-62112046985465670722012-01-08T15:37:30.927-06:002012-01-08T15:37:30.927-06:00What they are thinking is that wealth and income s...What they are thinking is that wealth and income should not be "too unequal." My own view is that there's no such thing as "too unequal," any more than we could be "not unequal enough." Whether you are entitled to what you have depends on how you got it. I'm with Heidt on that.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-11804539937337516452012-01-08T15:02:12.884-06:002012-01-08T15:02:12.884-06:00I don't know what "equality" is. If ...I don't know what "equality" is. If somebody says: "equal protection under the law", I have an idea what is meant by that. But the term "equality" by itself is so indistinct and abstract that it only makes any sense if you give or imply a context. I think that OWS protestors project their utopian vision for mankind onto that word. That is a priority for them, and they do not seem to examine the origin of the word, to see whether such a thing as "equality" exists anywhere in this universe, or how such an abstraction is created and to what extent it may be valid, and at what point it crosses over to become a tool for ideological projection. They have confiscated the word "equality" for their purposes, just like the word "Islamophobia" (and many other words that are similarly coined or confiscated). "Equality", as an unexamined, absract concept, does not go together with "freedom", because the premise of "equality" is the (false) belief that everybody is "the same" in every important way. The idea that you can have freedom but NOT have different outcomes sounds crazy to me. I agree with an article titled: "Occupy Wall Street: a Declaration of Dependence" http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelprell/2011/11/10/occupy_wall_street_a_declaration_of_dependence/page/full/Max Kuenkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12807026662107157577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-90444955778406265822012-01-01T20:25:19.400-06:002012-01-01T20:25:19.400-06:00Thanks for your interesting comment.
I'd say ...Thanks for your interesting comment.<br /><br />I'd say that Rawls treats the eqalitarian standard in an unusual and original way, but it still is his ultimate value. Notice that the Principle of Equal Basic Liberties treats issues like freedom of speech as issues of distributive justice, and that the DJ principle employed (as the name of the principle itself suggests) is equality. Also, when he argues that the difference principle is what would arise in the original position, he claims that the first arrangement that would occur to the participants is absolute equality. Then, inequalities are allowed but only if they are good for the least well-off -- which is an egalitarian concern. Note also that it doesn't matter whether the least well-off are suffering any positive pain or harm at all -- only that their position is less than that of others. So the ultimate value at work here can't be care/harm.<br /><br />Like I say, though, his position is complicated, which makes it seem initially multi-vauled and ambiguous.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-48327402091466671002012-01-01T17:50:05.948-06:002012-01-01T17:50:05.948-06:00I'm not a fan of Rawls, but it's not as if...I'm not a fan of Rawls, but it's not as if he advocates mandating that everyone . (The "egalitarian" label may be misleading here. )What does he advocate is that the way society is organized do two things: first, guarantee basic liberties for all, and second, maximize the well-being of the least well-off. That sounds like cranking concern for care/harm and liberty/oppression way up, especially with your "underdog" gloss on care/harm.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.com