5 ms·

Yeah sure... "Poverty is the problem, not inequality". That's just lobbying and self-delusion into believing that improving the riches always ends up improving

by soufron 10y ago

Yeah sure... "Poverty is the problem, not inequality". That's just lobbying and self-delusion into believing that improving the riches always ends up improving the poors. John Rawls where are you? Equality does not mean having the same amount of money. That's naive and uninformed. Equality means sharing everything. It means that the nids of the riches and the poors will go to the same schools, that everybody goes to the same hospitals, etc. Of course it implies that these services must be good enough so that the riches wont look for something else. But then you can have both poors and equality.

nickff 10y ago
The only problem is that Rawls was wrong; there is ample evidence showing that we have differing views on what is right even when shielded by a 'veil of ignorance'. For instance, your view of equality is not the same as mine, as I favor a 'rule of law' paradigm of equality (, and I do not mean to imply that you are 'wrong'). The author here seems to value Pareto (absolute and widespread) improvements over relative measures, which you appear to prioritize; one could even make the case that you are encouraging avarice.
- soufron 10y ago
  Poor Pareto would be sad to hear this. Even as hé described them, he viewed Pareto improvements as unjust and broken.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- physicalist 10y ago
  There can be no such evidence because there is no such thing as a "veil of ignorance". You are fully aware of your social status. It seems likely that this knowledge informs your values.
  - soufron 10y ago
    That's not what the veil of ignorance is about. It's not supposed to be a reality, but a thought experiment in order to do the relevant moral choices.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Your status does inform your values, but we differ in values even if we aggressively correct for social status (as well as upbringing, race, and every other factor). This is a 'nurture vs. nature' issue, where Rawls assumed nature was irrelevant, but was incorrect.
- barrkel 10y ago
  It's natural that we think differently behind the veil because we cannot remove from ourselves our different knowledge of what lies beyond. I don't think this makes Rawls wrong; it makes some arguments from behind the veil ignorant in a different way, not an ignorance of where we end up, but an ignorance of what it's actually like across the spectrum of possibilities.
  - nickff 10y ago
    No, it is not about us not being able to use he veil effectively; we have different innate preferences and understandings without regard to our present circumstances.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      It is extremely amusing—and informative with regards to your argument—that you think your preferences and understandings are innate and separate from your material circumstances. You make it clear you do not understand Rawls or the veil of ignorance at all.
      - nickff 10y ago
        They are related, but not completely determinitive of one another; it is a 'nature vs nurture' issue, as I describe in my comment on a lower post. Existing evidence shows that preferences and understandings are a result of nature and nurture; there are a number of interesting studies on the subject, which obtain differing results, but none agrees with Rawls' assumptions. You can find this evidence in a number of fields including psychology on moral reasoning, educational psychology, and studies on philosophy. Your dismissiveness illustrates your foolishness, and you clearly made no effort to understand my point; or perhaps you lack the mental capacity to read three posts down.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        I'm not sure I'm the one being dismissive here, and insulting my "mental capacity" is rather dull. I've read your other comment, as well, but it, like this one, provides no concrete explanations or evidentiary support for your argument. > They are related, but not completely determinitive of one another; it is a 'nature vs nurture' issue, as I describe in my comment on a lower post. Existing evidence shows that preferences and understandings are a result of nature and nurture; there are a number of interesting studies on the subject, which obtain differing results, but none agrees with Rawls' assumptions. You can find this evidence in a number of fields including psychology on moral reasoning, educational psychology, and studies on philosophy. First off, it's a rather vacant argument to suggest one's preferences as they relate to one's material conditions and circumstances, are "nature v nurture". What preferences are you suggesting are natural, divorced from one's material conditions and circumstances? Which are you willing to agree to being informed, established, or perpetuated by one's material conditions and circumstances? What evidence are you specifically pointing to as differentiating natural preferences vs those which are learned within one's social space? Most importantly, what at all does this evidence have to do with the veil of ignorance or Rawls' arguments for justice, fairness, or equality—which isn't some Rawlsian invention, but has a long history in the works of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and other seminal political and social theorists? You seem to have a conception that Rawls' ideas are somehow reducible to a single binary format of true/false. This is what I mean by pointing out your comments show no actual understanding of Rawls, or any other thinkers who discuss the veil of ignorance or equality. You don't realize that what you think you're disputing with relation to Rawls isn't something Rawls has suggested to be any different. What assumptions do you think Rawls makes that you believe you—and all this alleged evidence—disagrees with and proves to be incorrect assumptions?
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  You do not understand Rawls, and are suggesting as a point of opposition exactly what Rawls takes as a fundamental given in human society. Rawls makes no suggestion that everyone shares the same perspectives on either side of the veil of ignorance. In fact, he says the opposite, and it is because of this he suggests the veil of ignorance as a mediating force to minimize the vast difference of views, by way of the veil removing one's knowledge of their material place and circumstances in society on the other side of the veil. Rawls very strongly supports fidelity to and rule of law. The veil's purpose is to provide a more level playing field on which participants in a society can more fairly determine what the rules of law and order will be. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean when you suggest a "'rule of law' paradigm of equality"? I have no doubt you mean something specific, but this combination of words suggests nothing about this paradigm of equality, nor about what role the "rule of law" plays in or has relationship to equality.
  - nickff 10y ago
    I resolved to your first paragraph in a response to a sub-comment here, and will not repeat the text. Rule of law provides a foundation for equality; having a system that treats everyone in a predictable, unbiased, and well-known fashion gives them something they can count on when they plan and engage in all the activities of life. The more your fate rests in the hands of officers acting capriciously, with the power of vague unpredictable rules that you were never aware of, the more difficult and terrifying your life becomes. When you don't have rule of law, who you are in relation to the powerful determines what you can do, and who you can be, thus depriving many (if not most) of opportunity, while subjecting them to the worst form of oppression, embodied by constant terror. It is unfortunate that no country, province, state, or city fully follows the principles of 'rule of law' but there is definitely a spectrum, and some are much better than others.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      > I resolved to your first paragraph in a response to a sub-comment here, and will not repeat the text. You really didn't, except to offer some hand-waving nature v nurture nonsense and insults that don't elucidate or engage Rawls' ideas at all. > Rule of law provides a foundation for equality; having a system that treats everyone in a predictable, unbiased, and well-known fashion gives them something they can count on when they plan and engage in all the activities of life. The more your fate rests in the hands of officers acting capriciously, with the power of vague unpredictable rules that you were never aware of, the more difficult and terrifying your life becomes. When you don't have rule of law, who you are in relation to the powerful determines what you can do, and who you can be, thus depriving many (if not most) of opportunity, while subjecting them to the worst form of oppression, embodied by constant terror. You appear to assume that "rule of law" as an idea provides any guarantees at all that the laws themselves by which one is ruled are at all just, fair, or equitable. It is, at best, foolish to make such an assumption. People living under a lawful regime of unjust laws will find themselves in no better shape than those who toil under a less lawful society. History is replete with such circumstances, including: - Jews under the rule of law of National Socialism - former slaves and their descendants under the rule of law of the post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow South - slaves under the rule of law in every Western colonial/imperial territory, and the pre-Civil War US - interracial couples under the rule of law before Loving v Virginia - women under the rule of law throughout Western nations before the advent of equal suffrage The rule of law provides no innate or guaranteed protection from inequality or injustice. Who you are in relation to the powerful always determines what you can be and do, especially within the context of legally proscribed behaviors. Those who hold power typically make the laws. When the laws are unjust, inequitable, and unfair, the rule of law does nothing to alleviate such a condition.
bluetomcat 10y ago
> Of course it implies that these services must be good enough so that the riches wont look for something else. Even if the services are good enough, there will always be segregation in the presence of huge income disparities between sizable portions of the population. Wealthy overambitious parents wouldn't want their kids to have any contact whatsoever with the "lower class".
- soufron 10y ago
  Yeah? Have a look at EU social democracies... Everybody go to the same schools and the same hospitals, everybody gets the same internet, everybody go to the same sport clubs, etc. And wealthy overambitious parents tend to hide their money and live among their community.
  - bluetomcat 10y ago
    That tends to happen in EU countries with lower income disparity (mainly Germany and the Nordic countries), which doesn't disprove my point. With 10x disparity and more, it is not going to happen.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    I live in an apparent EU social democracy, certainly compared to US and there are different classes of sports clubs, different schools (all schools are paid for by the state and kids living within x miles get in. House prices within x miles determine who can get in) It's crazy, we do push for better for our kids and our selves within the bounds of whatever equality we have set.
WalterBright 10y ago
> Of course it implies that these services must be good enough so that the riches wont look for something else. There can be only one best heart surgeon. How would you go about deciding who gets the best one, and who gets second best, on down to who gets the bottom of the class?
woliveirajr 10y ago
> But then you can have both poors and equality. Venezuela?

by soufron 10y ago

nickff 10y ago

The only problem is that Rawls was wrong; there is ample evidence showing that we have differing views on what is right even when shielded by a 'veil of ignorance'. For instance, your view of equality is not the same as mine, as I favor a 'rule of law' paradigm of equality (, and I do not mean to imply that you are 'wrong'). The author here seems to value Pareto (absolute and widespread) improvements over relative measures, which you appear to prioritize; one could even make the case that you are encouraging avarice.

soufron 10y ago
Poor Pareto would be sad to hear this. Even as hé described them, he viewed Pareto improvements as unjust and broken.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
physicalist 10y ago
There can be no such evidence because there is no such thing as a "veil of ignorance". You are fully aware of your social status. It seems likely that this knowledge informs your values.
- soufron 10y ago
  That's not what the veil of ignorance is about. It's not supposed to be a reality, but a thought experiment in order to do the relevant moral choices.
- nickff 10y ago
  Your status does inform your values, but we differ in values even if we aggressively correct for social status (as well as upbringing, race, and every other factor). This is a 'nurture vs. nature' issue, where Rawls assumed nature was irrelevant, but was incorrect.
barrkel 10y ago
It's natural that we think differently behind the veil because we cannot remove from ourselves our different knowledge of what lies beyond. I don't think this makes Rawls wrong; it makes some arguments from behind the veil ignorant in a different way, not an ignorance of where we end up, but an ignorance of what it's actually like across the spectrum of possibilities.
- nickff 10y ago
  No, it is not about us not being able to use he veil effectively; we have different innate preferences and understandings without regard to our present circumstances.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    It is extremely amusing—and informative with regards to your argument—that you think your preferences and understandings are innate and separate from your material circumstances. You make it clear you do not understand Rawls or the veil of ignorance at all.
    - nickff 10y ago
      They are related, but not completely determinitive of one another; it is a 'nature vs nurture' issue, as I describe in my comment on a lower post. Existing evidence shows that preferences and understandings are a result of nature and nurture; there are a number of interesting studies on the subject, which obtain differing results, but none agrees with Rawls' assumptions. You can find this evidence in a number of fields including psychology on moral reasoning, educational psychology, and studies on philosophy. Your dismissiveness illustrates your foolishness, and you clearly made no effort to understand my point; or perhaps you lack the mental capacity to read three posts down.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        I'm not sure I'm the one being dismissive here, and insulting my "mental capacity" is rather dull. I've read your other comment, as well, but it, like this one, provides no concrete explanations or evidentiary support for your argument. > They are related, but not completely determinitive of one another; it is a 'nature vs nurture' issue, as I describe in my comment on a lower post. Existing evidence shows that preferences and understandings are a result of nature and nurture; there are a number of interesting studies on the subject, which obtain differing results, but none agrees with Rawls' assumptions. You can find this evidence in a number of fields including psychology on moral reasoning, educational psychology, and studies on philosophy. First off, it's a rather vacant argument to suggest one's preferences as they relate to one's material conditions and circumstances, are "nature v nurture". What preferences are you suggesting are natural, divorced from one's material conditions and circumstances? Which are you willing to agree to being informed, established, or perpetuated by one's material conditions and circumstances? What evidence are you specifically pointing to as differentiating natural preferences vs those which are learned within one's social space? Most importantly, what at all does this evidence have to do with the veil of ignorance or Rawls' arguments for justice, fairness, or equality—which isn't some Rawlsian invention, but has a long history in the works of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and other seminal political and social theorists? You seem to have a conception that Rawls' ideas are somehow reducible to a single binary format of true/false. This is what I mean by pointing out your comments show no actual understanding of Rawls, or any other thinkers who discuss the veil of ignorance or equality. You don't realize that what you think you're disputing with relation to Rawls isn't something Rawls has suggested to be any different. What assumptions do you think Rawls makes that you believe you—and all this alleged evidence—disagrees with and proves to be incorrect assumptions?
bobwaycott 10y ago
You do not understand Rawls, and are suggesting as a point of opposition exactly what Rawls takes as a fundamental given in human society. Rawls makes no suggestion that everyone shares the same perspectives on either side of the veil of ignorance. In fact, he says the opposite, and it is because of this he suggests the veil of ignorance as a mediating force to minimize the vast difference of views, by way of the veil removing one's knowledge of their material place and circumstances in society on the other side of the veil. Rawls very strongly supports fidelity to and rule of law. The veil's purpose is to provide a more level playing field on which participants in a society can more fairly determine what the rules of law and order will be. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean when you suggest a "'rule of law' paradigm of equality"? I have no doubt you mean something specific, but this combination of words suggests nothing about this paradigm of equality, nor about what role the "rule of law" plays in or has relationship to equality.
- nickff 10y ago
  I resolved to your first paragraph in a response to a sub-comment here, and will not repeat the text. Rule of law provides a foundation for equality; having a system that treats everyone in a predictable, unbiased, and well-known fashion gives them something they can count on when they plan and engage in all the activities of life. The more your fate rests in the hands of officers acting capriciously, with the power of vague unpredictable rules that you were never aware of, the more difficult and terrifying your life becomes. When you don't have rule of law, who you are in relation to the powerful determines what you can do, and who you can be, thus depriving many (if not most) of opportunity, while subjecting them to the worst form of oppression, embodied by constant terror. It is unfortunate that no country, province, state, or city fully follows the principles of 'rule of law' but there is definitely a spectrum, and some are much better than others.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    > I resolved to your first paragraph in a response to a sub-comment here, and will not repeat the text. You really didn't, except to offer some hand-waving nature v nurture nonsense and insults that don't elucidate or engage Rawls' ideas at all. > Rule of law provides a foundation for equality; having a system that treats everyone in a predictable, unbiased, and well-known fashion gives them something they can count on when they plan and engage in all the activities of life. The more your fate rests in the hands of officers acting capriciously, with the power of vague unpredictable rules that you were never aware of, the more difficult and terrifying your life becomes. When you don't have rule of law, who you are in relation to the powerful determines what you can do, and who you can be, thus depriving many (if not most) of opportunity, while subjecting them to the worst form of oppression, embodied by constant terror. You appear to assume that "rule of law" as an idea provides any guarantees at all that the laws themselves by which one is ruled are at all just, fair, or equitable. It is, at best, foolish to make such an assumption. People living under a lawful regime of unjust laws will find themselves in no better shape than those who toil under a less lawful society. History is replete with such circumstances, including: - Jews under the rule of law of National Socialism - former slaves and their descendants under the rule of law of the post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow South - slaves under the rule of law in every Western colonial/imperial territory, and the pre-Civil War US - interracial couples under the rule of law before Loving v Virginia - women under the rule of law throughout Western nations before the advent of equal suffrage The rule of law provides no innate or guaranteed protection from inequality or injustice. Who you are in relation to the powerful always determines what you can be and do, especially within the context of legally proscribed behaviors. Those who hold power typically make the laws. When the laws are unjust, inequitable, and unfair, the rule of law does nothing to alleviate such a condition.

bluetomcat 10y ago

> Of course it implies that these services must be good enough so that the riches wont look for something else. Even if the services are good enough, there will always be segregation in the presence of huge income disparities between sizable portions of the population. Wealthy overambitious parents wouldn't want their kids to have any contact whatsoever with the "lower class".

soufron 10y ago
Yeah? Have a look at EU social democracies... Everybody go to the same schools and the same hospitals, everybody gets the same internet, everybody go to the same sport clubs, etc. And wealthy overambitious parents tend to hide their money and live among their community.
- bluetomcat 10y ago
  That tends to happen in EU countries with lower income disparity (mainly Germany and the Nordic countries), which doesn't disprove my point. With 10x disparity and more, it is not going to happen.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  I live in an apparent EU social democracy, certainly compared to US and there are different classes of sports clubs, different schools (all schools are paid for by the state and kids living within x miles get in. House prices within x miles determine who can get in) It's crazy, we do push for better for our kids and our selves within the bounds of whatever equality we have set.

WalterBright 10y ago

> Of course it implies that these services must be good enough so that the riches wont look for something else. There can be only one best heart surgeon. How would you go about deciding who gets the best one, and who gets second best, on down to who gets the bottom of the class?

woliveirajr 10y ago

> But then you can have both poors and equality. Venezuela?