Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:10 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:37 pm
I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

Welfare programs in the US aren't really aiming at equality of outcome. It's understood that a person on welfare is not going to fare as well as someone working under gainful employment. And they generally don't, albeit with some exceptions (such as the working poor who don't qualify for welfare). Welfare programs in the US have never been about equality of outcome. They've always been about preventing hunger and destitution. Not sure what "equality of outcome" has to do with anything in reality. Our programs are mostly trying to keep people from dying homeless on the street.

The liberal mantra in the US for the past 50 years and more has been equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. However, dishonest critics constantly put up the straw man of "equality of outcome" as the "real" motive.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:28 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:10 pm
(b) Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.
(c) That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.


(d) What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.


(e) Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 3:06 pm

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:28 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:59 pm
(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

The old, 'let us look at the, so-called, issue/problem, and fix that', never works. So, why keep doing what does not work?

The only thing that actually works is, let us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.

So, why not do 'this', instead?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:19 pm
That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:28 am
Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

The old, 'let us look at the, so-called, issue/problem, and fix that', never works. So, why keep doing what does not work?

The only thing that actually works is, let us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.

So, why not do 'this', instead?

Age, Immanuel Can does in fact do as you advocate. IC says he knows what lets us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.
IC says Christianity does this.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:11 am The Gospel records Jesus as proclaiming that the rich man cannot enter the Kingdom. Thus , not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity is not only socialist but also Christian.

Martin has listed the practical political adjustments needed for equality of opportunity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:19 pm
That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am but He (and Moses)did codify it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 11:12 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm
Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

All higher animals are wired for fairness.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 11:12 am Just as they are for love, and that bar is dropping spectacularly; preying mantises, fish. Apart from the 1% of human males with extreme psychopathy. Out of the 30% of the population on the psychopathic spectrum, as is shown amply here. I dare say I'm on it.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 11:12 am And its equality of outcome, not opportunity Belinda. Jesus ran with the ball of his ancient culture in that regard; debt cancellation, and remarkable care for the disadvantaged, Leviticus 19:9-10 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. Equality of opportunity without equality of outcome just accumulates privilege.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 11:12 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm
Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

All higher animals are wired for fairness. Just as they are for love, and that bar is dropping spectacularly; preying mantises, fish. Apart from the 1% of human males with extreme psychopathy. And even they can feel regret, but cannot express it. Out of the 30% of the population on the psychopathic spectrum, as is shown amply here. I dare say I'm on it.

And its equality of outcome, not opportunity Belinda. Jesus ran with the ball of his ancient culture in that regard; debt cancellation, and remarkable care for the disadvantaged, Leviticus 19:9-10 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. Equality of opportunity without equality of outcome just accumulates privilege.

What was Durkheim's theory about alienation? Without common beliefs, values, rules, and structures for society, there is no collective consciousness. This means each person chooses their own ideas and values, isolating and alienating people from one another. Alienation is a symptom of anomie.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:19 pm For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:37 pm Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:37 pm Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.