The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Is there is any moral reason inequality is bad?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:49 PM Author: gay theater seems like the main reason offered nowadays boils down to - the poors will make things unstable. but that's a pragmatic reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540444) |
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:50 PM Author: bisexual fishy temple candlestick maker empowers Chads at the expense of Wilburs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540463) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:51 PM Author: passionate sienna location digit ratio let's make things like you don't know whether you will be at the top of the ladder or the bottom of the ladder--how would you want things to work (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540464) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:51 PM Author: Nighttime bronze stain Not necessarily.
I was reading some John Rawls and, despite having a relatively liberal take on political philosophy, even he outright states that inequality isn't bad--as long as people are able to achieve a baseline level of shit they want and need to have a normal life and all positions/offices are equally obtainable, then no, inequality isn't an issue.
Inequality in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's just bad when it impacts other things like peoples' well being, the stability of the economy, etc. |
 |
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:54 PM Author: Costumed Diverse Den cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540483) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:56 PM Author: Vengeful Embarrassed To The Bone Windowlicker Juggernaut "Inequality in and of itself isn't a bad thing."
How does that function in your argument? Is your claim that something only has moral significance if it is good or bad in a vacuum? |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:03 PM Author: sepia bearded gay wizard I'm pretty sure he means you need more information about inequality to make a moral judgment.
Like killing a human being. In itself it is not immoral. You need to know the circumstances before judging. |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:06 PM Author: Nighttime bronze stain Not really. My point is that inequality is good in some cases and bad in others depending on what it serves to do.
Inequality as a system of incentives to motivate hard working and talented people is good because these people end up serving society as a whole to their greatest extent, which they might not otherwise do if there was no inequality. Most people would agree with this too: a perfectly equal society would be miserable and even unfair--at the end of the day some people work harder and some people are more talented and ultimately produce more for society/are capable of doing things most other people can't or won't and they rightfully deserve to be rewarded for it.
Again, conversely, when inequality shuts people out from opportunities and comes at the expense of the well being of others, it's bad.
Inequality isn't really bad or good. It's almost like a social tool that can achieve different desired ends. |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:48 PM Author: Vengeful Embarrassed To The Bone Windowlicker Juggernaut I think it's reasonably well accepted that high levels of inequality have harmful psychological consequences and that the U.S. has high levels of inequality.
I'll grant that some level of inequality is a motivating factor and that some level of inequality can't be reasonably or responsibly avoided. (But, when you combine high inequality with low mobility, you get counterproductive discouragement.)
I don't think I've seen anything suggesting that we're at the optimal level of inequality, and I don't think I've seen anyone seriously argue that we need more inequality.
That suggests that current levels of inequality are probably bad for the vast majority of people. |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 2:58 PM Author: Massive navy roast beef there are luck egalitarian responses to rawls.
thats probably what op should be looking at if he wants an argument.
|
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:00 PM Author: Massive navy roast beef have you read ga cohen?
"despite having a relatively liberal take..." suggests youre dismissing the serious critiques from the left. theyre much more relevant to rawls than the silly nozick bullshit imo |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:08 PM Author: Nighttime bronze stain Nah I haven't read much political philosophy outside of what's most widely taught/popular. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540587) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:15 PM Author: Curious voyeur locus It's possible that people derive happiness (utility) from the type of society they live in--one with rights, fairness towards others, wealth equality, etc.--even if there's no calculable benefit to them personally. This could lead to a utilitarian argument for equality.
This is almost certainly true to some extent, although it seems like economists pooh-pooh it because it can be used to justify anything that a democracy does as being economically ideal.
I'm no expert in econ or (especially) philosophy, obviously. |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:15 PM Author: Motley Address Inequality is natural and has existed throughout human history. This equalist blip on the radar is illusory and not even "real," but it was a good myth for a while.
I look forward to the days when we return to legit feudalism in name with poors being indentured and tied to the land. |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2016 3:18 PM Author: concupiscible lavender circlehead people who are hurt People's happiness is largely derived from their perceived status in relation to others and the belief that their outcome in life has been "earned." Too much inequality threatens both. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3231947&forum_id=2#30540667) |