Philosophy Now Forum

Philip Badger tries to convince us to be optimistic about human equality.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Lets_Be_Reasonable

There are some things that should be equal and some things that should not. There are some things we can make equal and others not. A society gets it energy and dynamism from trying to make things equal. The success of a people is in the doing, like working to achieve equality, even though we don't always succeed.

Harrison Bergeron was here

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:Harrison Bergeron was here

-Imp

Is that what you think equality is all about Imp? That liberals want a world where everyone is made to hide their light under a bushel?

If so, that is a very odd thing to think. It could never work...even if we wanted it to...as the brilliant liberal writers and journalists and philanthropists , would still probably want accolades for their contribution to society. Actresses and artists, scientists and architects too....there are just too many good things that come of excellence to ever worry that the world will ever be totally equal.

But there are things that are atrocities as well, such as someone dying of cancer because they are too poor to afford health care. Or someone dying of hunger while the few billionaires charge 7000. dollars for one pill. I could go on and on....there is quite a dramatic difference between life threatening injustice/inequality (man's inhumanity toward man) vs. cosmetic superficial inequality (talent or looks).

Are you able to discern between the two or is understanding your natural handicap? Oh...sorry...was Politically Incorrect?

Philosophy Now wrote:Let’s Be Reason_able!

To be able to reason is a big ask sometimes.

Philip Badger is making a Plato here, as I see it. The form of the article resembles a Dialogue to a large extent.

First he starts off with something that resembles what Sterba in the leading article labeled as "question begging", saying that inequality is the preferred state, pointing to that Spirit Level book. "Do worse on a range of indicators", with some indicators that normally is highlighted by equalitarians. The counterparts of Socrates swallow pretty much all the starting points of Socrates, same thing there, you're supposed to accept that start without protest.

Then Badger makes one of those lists with counter-arguments that is supposed to be complete. I feel the same there as when reading The Republic, where Plato drowns his counterparts in that kind of lists, which the counterparts happily accepts as exhausing. I want to say to both Badger, and to the spirit of Socrates - making the parallell with Algebra - Prove that those items span the room of possible list items! This is crucial, not only for discussions like this but for all kinds of philosophical and non-philosophilal questions. You break the problem down, get a couple of favourite subtopic of your choice and argues those down, thus claiming to have proved that the main question is answered. Which you have not.

I agree and don't agree to the four sub-arguments, but I can find loads of other counterarguments. Without being a libertarian at all. Like "Some people simply like that libertarianism eats equality, that It's ok that some get rich". Or that we maybe would not have been able to increase the mean life time as much as we had if not some people would have had the possibility to blossom, to do research, mostly sons and daughters from a background where money is not the most interesting issue. Like philosophers. All the great ones except Kant came from prosperous backgrounds.
The list can be made longer. So when Badger goes "If we are convinced..." the answer from my side is NO.

That said - the discussions from there on is rather more interesting, and those discussions do not have so much to do with the Liberty VS Equality struggle, those discusssions are more a description of diverse contemporary problems in the area of economics and politics. There is not, to my knowledge any country where the Libertarianism rules totally, without any social welfare, so, rather interesting discussions regarding problems western countries sees today(For instance, as said in the article - "increasing ethnic diversity" is an extremely hot potato in my home country Sweden).

Alright: for the next couple of days I’d like to bounce off of Phillip Badger’s article, ‘Let’s be reasonable’, in Philosophy Now (https://philosophynow.org/) issue 110. But I would mainly like to focus on his critiques of 4 primary anti-egalitarian arguments:

“1. Inequality is natural and so can’t/shouldn’t be altered;
2. Inequality is beneficial and so shouldn’t be altered;
3. Inequality is not great, but interventions to reduce it will make matters worse by, for example, creating welfare dependency or destroying jobs;
4. Inequality is just and so shouldn’t be altered.”

This list seems sound to me. God knows I have heard enough of them as a progressive. I would, however, revise his point by saying that these arguments apply as well to pro-Capitalists and Libertarians. They’re interchangeable as far as I’m concerned in that they are not just made towards egalitarian arguments, but towards any intrusion in the workings of Capitalism or the god-like Invisible Hand. It’s not just the egalitarians that are getting it; it’s the revisionist Keynesian social democrats like myself as well. Anyway:

“1. Inequality is natural and so can’t/shouldn’t be altered

It is not hard to see that appeals from what is natural don’t have much traction in terms of what we should do: smallpox is natural but we worked hard to eliminate it. The thought that we can’t do anything about inequality is often based on the claim, reiterated by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in 2013, that inequality is genetic and so unalterable. In fact the research Johnson referred to – by Robert Plomin in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2013) – suggests that while potential is fixed by genetics, its realisation is dependent on environmental factors. Additional evidence for this is provided by the Perry Preschool Project (1962 on), a study of the educational and lifetime impact of intensive preschool support for disadvantaged children. In a paper for the Society for Research in Child Development, Lawrence Schweinhart et al (2003) estimated that every dollar spent in that project saved sixteen dollars in lifetime welfare spending on its relatively socially mobile participants compared to a control group.”

Yes, of course: the naturalistic fallacy: the erroneous assumption that nature is the last word in social policy. On top of that, there is the issue of how we demarcate between what is natural and what is un-natural. At what point in our evolution and the technology we have developed in the process did we move from “being natural” to being unnatural. The term ‘natural’ is, of course, a kind of appeal to authority: something we just throw around to make our positions, and the assumptions they are based on, seem like they are on a more solid foundation than they really are, little more than a throwback to the romantic period when we were abandoning God and needed something to replace him. We can see this dynamic and the ignorance at work in institutional homophobia in the sense that what they do is somehow considered ‘unnatural’. But there were experiments done in the 70’s in which rats were allowed to reproduce in a cage until they got crowded. What they noted throughout the process were increased instances of aggression (think crime in the ghettos (and same sex mounting. Now this is not to reduce the gay community to the level of two same-sex rats getting it on in a cage. But it does suggest that homosexuality is the perfectly natural reaction of nature to overpopulation.

It gets really odious when you consider Capitalism’s appeal (I anthropomorphize for convenience (to it, that is given that it is primarily Capitalism that has taken us (via technology (from a natural state to what we generally perceive as ‘unnatural’. In this sense, Capitalism has become a kind of free-rider in that it uses this appeal to the natural to make it seem as if it, itself, is perfectly natural –like the weather or something. We can see this in the argument:

What do the rich owe us?

First of all, Capitalism is not some natural force in our lives. It is a human construct based on a human agreement. And the rich are only rich by virtue of that agreement. And when that agreement stops working for all parties involved, it seems perfectly NATURAL to me to consider changing that agreement. On top of that, the rich never get rich in a vacuum. Their wealth is always built on our labor as producers and our purchases as consumers. So I would say they owe us a lot: in fact everything they are and have.

And doesn’t this particular argument reek of Social Darwinism –yet another appeal to nature. But as I pointed out in response to James P. Sterba’s article ‘Liberty Requires Equality’:

“Libertarians, in their neo-Nietzscheian appeal to Social Darwinism, will often argue that it is perfectly natural for some people to have power over others. They, for instance, make appeals to the alpha male in tribes of apes. But given that, wouldn’t it be just as natural for the weaker members of that tribe to pool their power and overthrow the alpha male? And by that same token, wouldn’t it also be perfectly natural, as Sterba describes, for the poor (for the sake of liberty (to forcibly take excess resources from the rich to meet basic needs?”

I mean given how flexible the term ‘natural’ is, doesn’t it seem like a really weak appeal?

Egalitarianism is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man by man.

The Inglorious One wrote:Egalitarianism is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man by man.

Blame Jesus.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Egalitarianism is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man by man.

Blame Jesus.

Actually, yeah. And the French revolution.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Egalitarianism is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man by man.

Blame Jesus.

Actually, yeah. And the French revolution.

You can say what you like about the French, but there certainly knew how to treat Royalty.

But also demonstrated that pursuing an ideal can lead to improvements, despite not achieving an absolute.

Aside from that, you like, lost seem to misunderstand the meaning of egalitarianism. It's not a goal to make all equal it is a goal to make all equal under the law, and offer equal opportunities
As such, only a damn fool would suggest that it is a bad idea.

It is always a source of tragic amusement to me with what regularity those who have benefited much from the concept fall over themselves to adopt the bogus critique of the idea offered to them by the elites, who use it to clothe their privilege in a mask of necessity.
But you are not that stupid, eh?

“2. Inequality is beneficial and so shouldn’t be altered

This argument amounts to the claim that because some inequality may be ‘beneficial’ in the sense of providing incentives for hard work, more inequality must be even more beneficial. The late Harvard philosopher John Rawls agreed that a limited amount of inequality might increase the prosperity of all by providing incentives, but argued that we should tolerate inequality only so far as it demonstrably benefits the worst off (This is his famous ‘maximin’ principle). Being a follower of Immanuel Kant, Rawls opposed the view that the justice of a policy depends entirely on its consequences. However, he suggested that consequences can be taken into account so long as we gave absolute respect to the ‘liberty principle’ – the idea that our actions should not be interfered with as long as they don’t impinge on the liberty of others. So he suggested a ‘lexical ordering’ of principles – in other words, a hierarchy – in which weight could be given to consequences under certain circumstances. This matters to our discussion because while Rawls favoured some reduction of inequality in the United States, he might have done so more strongly given the evidence provided by Wilkinson and Picket.” –from Phillip Badger’s article ‘Let’s be Reasonable’ in Philosophy Now, issue 110: https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Lets_Be_Reasonable

And yet again, we find the naturalistic fallacy at work. It is basically an appeal to our evolution as a species that is best understood through the extremes of Nietzsche and Rand: this strange notion that those with fewer resources and suffer because of it should accept their lot because it furthers the greatest among us. Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, went as far as to ask us to consider those in less fortunate circumstances to consider their role as little more than support to the more fortunate among us. And Rand took this obnoxious (if not outright noxious (position up in her writings. The irony here (and hypocrisy (is the dismissal of religion both embraced in order to create yet another religion or higher principle. As Zizek points out in Plague of Fantasies:

“ Into this picture of utter gloom, Mother Theresa brings a ray of hope to the dejected with the message that poverty is to be accepted as way to redemption, since the poor, in enduring their sad fate with silent dignity and faith, repeat Christ’s Way of the cross….”

And how different are the two, really? Are they not both higher principles?

But what we really need to look at is how dependent Nietzsche’s and Rand’s argument are on fancy, how they appeal to it. Nietzsche was a weak isolated individual who would have died a virgin had it not been for the alleged hooker that gave him the alleged syphilis that allegedly drove him mad. And if this doesn’t fit the MO for a propensity towards fancy, I don’t know what does. And it is a matter of public record how Rand preferred the mythological over stories about protagonists who find themselves overcome by circumstances.

(And we should note here how this has trickled down into popular culture as was suggested by Reagan’s appeal to ‘rugged individualism’.)

What this has resulted in, that is in cyber circles, is a lot of basement overmen: those who embrace the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel of the fearlessly fanciful. They sit in environmentally controlled spaces saying cool and radical (radical purely for the appeal of the radical (things like anarcho-Capitalism. Tight fisted and ready for action, their utopia consists of some kind of Mad Maxian post apocalyptic terrain in which they fancy themselves as masters.

But getting back to the point:

“This argument amounts to the claim that because some inequality may be ‘beneficial’ in the sense of providing incentives for hard work, more inequality must be even more beneficial.”

Little more than an alibi that rides on the fancy described above. As I wrote in my response to Sterba’s ‘Liberty Requires Equality’:

“What it comes down to is the nature of discourse. By its inherent nature, discourse must always involve the goal of figuring out what will work best for everyone involved. However, the libertarian always comes into it at a disadvantage in that they have to argue what is strictly in their self interest and make it sound as if it is in everyone’s interest. This leaves them with no other choice than to play the language game to its fullest, to work from assumptions that, based on common doxa, they can assume that everyone shares.”

What the argument for inequality assumes is the Capitalistic value of ‘more’. And this has poisoned every discourse that goes on around it. Even liberal positions have bought into it in that they see the solution as more wages and benefits. And because of this, Capitalism has managed to control the rules of the language game. This is why they have gotten away with it: any solution we offer must be offered within the perimeters of a producer/consumer society.

But the only thing really at stake is basic human happiness. I would argue that what we need to look at is efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the resources put into a thing and the results gotten from it. Or it would be better to say that it is a matter of maximizing the always supra-efficiency of the co-existence of efficiencies by distributing resources and adjusting expectations in such a way that everyone has what they need to do what is most important to them. Once again:

“This argument amounts to the claim that because some inequality may be ‘beneficial’ in the sense of providing incentives for hard work, more inequality must be even more beneficial.”

What the argument for inequality assumes is that the only way anyone can achieve greatness is through struggle. But as Marx rightly noticed: too often, greatness (or our higher selves (can be stifled by the petty and mundane matters imposed on us by Capitalism. This is the oversight that both Nietzsche and Rand share. And this notion that a civil society must necessarily stifle the ‘Will to Power’ seems complete nonsense. We’re in the season. All we need to do is watch any football game on T.V. to see that.

d63 wrote:“2. Inequality is beneficial and so shouldn’t be altered

This argument amounts to the claim that because some inequality may be ‘beneficial’ in the sense of providing incentives for hard work, more inequality must be even more beneficial. .

Self contradictory.

If inequality is a solution to inequality then it is self altering.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

d63 wrote:“2. Inequality is beneficial and so shouldn’t be altered

This argument amounts to the claim that because some inequality may be ‘beneficial’ in the sense of providing incentives for hard work, more inequality must be even more beneficial. .

Self contradictory.

If inequality is a solution to inequality then it is self altering.

Huh?

Now I get it. Good analytic argument against the libertarian position.

"4. Inequality is just and so shouldn’t be altered

This argument’s proponents should get credit for being open about their aims. There is no pretence here of justifying inequality by reference to its alleged benefits."

True enough. But then we could say as much about psychopaths and serial killers. And this is what makes it really chilling. What we are dealing with here is the sociopathic response to the nihilistic perspective and the symbolic order. As we have come to recognize (especially since Nietzsche (all arguments break down to assumptions, and those assumptions ultimately float on thin air, and that this underlying nothingness haunts the symbolic order and forces it to recognize (or deny (that what everything it is built on are arbitrary criteria: human constructs.

This can result in two different responses: the psychotic and the sociopathic. The psychotic is a strategy of retreat in which the individual, having no real criteria by which to judge action, forms their own semiotic bubble with its own set of semiotic rules and meaning system and, in doing so, alienate themselves from the general symbolic order. The purest example of this, of course, is the mentally ill person walking down the street and engaging in a personal discourse. But we can also see this at work in the lives of hardcore alcoholics and drug addicts: such as was described in the movie Trainspotting. At the same time, we can see its more productive expressions in the avante garde which breaks from the symbolic order in order to transform it. Think, for instance, of punk music which broke away from all semiotic conventions and eventually transformed what was conventionally thought of as art.

The sociopathic (which is more important to our point (is the more aggressive result of an individual, having no real criteria by which to judge action, turning to the one criteria that almost seems to have a kind praxis to it in that it imposes itself: that of power. This leads to a kind of circular argument:

I have power because I am right; therefore, I am right because I have power.

Of course, the purest example of this is the sociopath. But it is also the strategy behind players (as anyone knows who has had their heart broke by one (and cutthroat Wall Street types.

(An exploration of the latter can be seen in the movie American Psycho. What was interesting about this was an interview of the writer of the book or the director (I’m sure which) in which they said that in the process of researching serial killers and Wall Street types, they found the Wall Street types surprisingly more disturbing. And while this may have been a bit of artistic hyperbole, one would have to admit that some of the details that came from this research in the movie are quite compelling.)

We can see this element at work in the argument that inequality is just. And it has permeated popular culture in the rock star nonchalance that FreeMarketFundamentalism tends to prop itself up on. Take, for instance, an argument made by Marlee Maitlin on Real Time with Bill Maher when Maher brought up man-made climate change and Maitlin scoffed:

“Surely Bill, you don’t expect me to ride a bike to work.”

And it only works as an evolutionary backlash –which is what makes it so powerful. One only need look at the evolutionary process that brought us to where we are. It all started with simple life forms that developed simple nervous systems that coalesced into central nervous systems that then budded into the base of the brain that flowered into the cortex we benefit from today. Parallel to this has been the evolutionary process of moving from what is in our immediate self interest to the less immediate (group behavior) to the even less immediate: mankind as a whole. We started with the competitive mind/base of brain relationship which, we have to admit, has gotten us to this point thus far. It was this mentality that we can see throughout the history of Capitalism. But throughout this process, we can also see the emergence of the cooperative model in which our baser impulses see it in their interest to work with our higher cognitive functions as compared to using them strictly for the sake of our baser impulses as the competitive model does. And let’s be clear on something: evolution is about adapting to a changing environment. And given that we are on the verge of destroying ourselves through man-made climate change, we can only see the cooperative dynamic as the next evolutionary step and the competitive one as little more than the backlash of those who, for self interested reasons, refuse to make the transition. Nozick is a perfect example of the competitive dynamic in his use of his higher cognitive functions (which are clearly developed (to prop up his baser impulses:

“Instead, we have the claim that if I have wealth, then, provided I didn’t get it illegally, I’m entitled to keep it. The most prominent advocate of this position was the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, friend and sparring partner of John Rawls. In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Nozick argued that the record earnings of sportsman Wilt Chamberlain shouldn’t be subject to any kind of redistributive taxation, as advocated by ‘patterned’ theories of justice, such as that of Rawls. For Nozick such redistribution is a violation of Chamberlain’s ‘negative right’ to be left alone, and a kind of theft of what he has justly earned.”

We see the same problem with Wilt Chamberlain as we do with Capitalism in general: the major oversight of recognizing one’s self as the benefactor of a system that can only exist if we, as a society, allow it to exist. Nozick acts as if Chamberlain emerged in a vacuum without the cumulative effect of our purchases as consumers and our choice to sustain the NBA: a system built through a cooperative effort. And we should note how supposedly “value free” Nozick is in appealing to Chamberlain primarily because many people value him. One could almost imagine Chamberlain on some commercial with big sympathetic eyes (like the commercials for the Humane Society and Children’s Fund we are seeing on TV (with Nozick telling us:

“This man worked for everything he has. He may be rich, but why should he have to pay more in taxes because he is? Why should he have to pay for the needs of the less fortunate?”