5 ms·

I'd argue that this argument is invalid for practical uses. Saying that luck is unfair is in my opinion a useless and even evil idea, it can be used to justify

I'd argue that this argument is invalid for practical uses. Saying that luck is unfair is in my opinion a useless and even evil idea, it can be used to justify terrible acts. Everything is luck, or did you choose what family you'd be born in? Did you choose your physical attributes? Inequality is inevitable, it is natural, and its fair, everyone got a dice roll, no one had control over it, no one can. In spite of these starting points, which are not the only luck based you will encounter, people can rise where others won't.

adjkant 9y ago
I think this position is incredibly susceptible to collapse from its own argument. > "people can rise where others won't" Why do they rise? Are they in control over these reasons at all, or is that luck too? This brings up central questions of free will and influence of external sources. As a hard determinist, I'd argue it's all entirely luck to the core. You're going to have a hard time drawing a line between luck and free will that people will ever agree on for the foreseeable future. > "Inequality is inevitable, it is natural, and its fair" Inevitable? I'd agree. Natural? In so much that it is the way of nature, yes. But nature isn't inherently good, it simply is. Fair? Doesn't seem like it is at all to me. Now we have to go neck deep into a discussion on the definition of fairness (please let's not actually here). > "Saying that luck is unfair is in my opinion a useless and even evil idea, it can be used to justify terrible acts." What acts are you referring to? I suspect that these terrible acts rely on far more interpretation beyond "luck is unfair". Those interpretations having flaws does not make this particular idea evil.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  That's what I meant, trying to figure it out what's luck and whats isn't is impossible, as you put it > all entirely luck to the core But now how can you, or anyone else have a say in what is equal? It's all so complicated, trying to do anything about it is pointless, it feels to me as arrogant to think you can find a solution to all this. I think you are right, we should focus on the problem itself, instead of what's fair. Everything is luck, you have no control over your starting point. It's all random, to try to say you understand this is the same as saying you understand quantum mechanics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Feynman Now to say we can fix it with a system of redistribution of wealth is wishful thinking. I'd argue that this system will be unequal, and worse. Reminds me of my SO's siblings, they say my SO is successful because she had a father (showed up after she was 10 btw), or her mother liked her more, or some other reason, which sure has an effect. They had a pretty equal starting point, the are broke because they are losers, to say my wife must share her wealth with them is evil. I always hear the inequality card as "The losers want to be winners". Of course they want, now the question is it fair?
  - adjkant 9y ago
    To your examples, I think your interpretation of inequality is a misconception people have on many sides (politically speaking) that perverts the definition, or rather misuses and does not consider justice within the context of equality. Obviously, your SO not directly sharing her wealth with others seems just, at least with the minimal details presented. But this implies that there is something that is fair. How do we determine that? You also bake in within your language a level of assigned responsibility to your SO's siblings. > "But now how can you, or anyone else have a say in what is equal?" I'd argue we all do. It's a philosophical question that may very well have an empirical answer. Perhaps a subjective one. Perhaps many subjective ones that share common traits. But the properties of equality in reference to fairness / justice are important things. The problem is we're still sorting out those properties, if any exist. --------------------------------------- With all that said, I would highly recommend reading some Rawls and playing around with his ideas. I think he presents some really interesting approaches to the problem. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, there is much progress made there in his work I think. While many attempts to correct the randomness (unfairness) of life can indeed make it worse, there are things that can work, and we shouldn't give up the pursuit entirely. There is such a thing as degrees of fairness, and for every problem nature's degree of fairness is just that - random. Some we can't realistically expect to beat, and others are things I would argue we should focus on. While I don't want the definition of fairness to be a focus of the post, I do think time spent there is well worth it generally. This post is more getting at why the definition is important though, as "what is fairness" is a huge can of worms.
    - pedro_hab 9y ago
      Yes, it's a complex matter, I do not think I know the answers and I'm curious on what the future holds. And I might read more into it. My gut says we have seen what works, I'd argue that freedom has shown as the best approach to poverty, the only approach I personally have seen so far (keep in mind I am not a researcher in this). "Socialist" ideas have been tried and even when it "works" it's not clear that it did. Where freedom (read capitalism) is crystal clear (like it or not). Whatever degree of freedom is given to socialist/communist societies we clearly see improvements. (off tangent much, sry) But to be concrete, every wealthy country I know of used freedom to get where it is. I'm from Brazil, I see how these inequality ideas are sold there, how wealth distribution is holding us back. Enabling people to do what they want is proven to work, allow them to enjoy the spoils of it is proven too, some things will look unfair, that's the way nature is. Putting our fate in the hands of other is not an idea I see of value, the state is controlled by people, and these people are, like ourselves deeply flawed.
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  They do not have a aristocratic caste holding back- lots of innovation in ancient greek for example happened, because entrapeneurs escaped with boats to different shores and founded colonys. Look at the valley today, its a Hacker culture gone sour. Hacking today means, ripping a preexisting value cycle from the old elite, and with the lowest possible effort turn it into - the same cycle with you in control. Those "Making the world a better place" (for themselves) laugh about those actually contributing by obsessing over tech (the usefool toolfools). The true motto of this party is "noblesse oblige" and you can hear it in every subtle comment on how the commoners chose your app, your system and would have opted out if it was that horrible. Those people of different neuronal colour - they need our help and guidance. Its stagnation at the worst possible moment, and the best you can do against that is disrupt the taking over of old value cycles with laws. Which is again problematic, because another, older Tinkerculture gone sour (called lawyers) hijacked the legislative process. The extrem inequality of aristocratic societys usually comes down when natures limits are reached- and cant be breached due to a lack of innovative tools and methods. If you do not invest in chemistry - the castle will burn- if you do the castle will be blown to smitherens with fertilizer- so you dont until the hunger games start.
  - pedro_hab 9y ago
    I found myself lacking to fully understand this. I sort of got the idea that you are fond with freedom with the greek story. But then I sense a little disregard for the free market with the > "commoners chose your app", and how there is a circle trying to be privileged at expense of others. Do you mean the state (with laws) should fix this circle?
dvt 9y ago
If you agree with Dworkin's distinction between "justified inequality of resources" and "unjustified inequality of resources" -- which I think is the only nontrivial part of this equation -- then the argument follows without too much difficulty. So to argue that the argument is invalid, you'd have to show why you think there's no such thing as "(un)justified inequality of resources." The fact that inequality is inevitable or natural doesn't have bearing on the justification of distribution (or non-distribution) of wealth any more than the eventual heat death of the universe has on getting a tetanus shot after you stepped on a rusty nail.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  So you really believe that even though inequality is a constant, it's everywhere, it's unstoppable. Even then there is still space to try to fix it? It's not a bug it's a feature. (Software dev here :)) I heard someone calling it cosmic justice, which seems to fit pretty well. Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Everyone ended poorer as a consequence of trying to fix this, thinking everyone has a right to have something is evil.
  - dvt 9y ago
    Death is a constant, it's everywhere, it's unstoppable, and yet people still take medicine, get vaccinated, and go to the doctor. I'm not sure I understand your argument.
    - pedro_hab 9y ago
      The point was that it's too complicated, trying to fix is pointless, my point is that it is not fixable, if you accept that is a problem, even in a perfect wealth redistribution system, there will be luck involved. But I also make the point that it is not a problem to begin with, I think inequality makes sense, me having more that my peers when I went where they wouldn't seems fair.
  - state_less 9y ago
    > Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Inequality might be bad for a variety of reasons, and not solely based on some notion of evil. A common reason cited is the lack of efficiency it can create in a market. A dominant player might suck the money velocity out of the system (i.e. take everyone's money) without some sort of redistribution mechanism. The market could lose it's vibrancy as players go into a simple sustenance mode or be destroyed. I think dvt points to the injustice side too, you can have inequality due to unjust actions. For example, if you use your dominant position to tilt the playing field in your favor with to the detriment of the system as a whole. An example might be to pay lawmakers to make a tax loophole for yourself, or worse, be given some sort of grant for being dominant, just because you can.

adjkant 9y ago

I think this position is incredibly susceptible to collapse from its own argument. > "people can rise where others won't" Why do they rise? Are they in control over these reasons at all, or is that luck too? This brings up central questions of free will and influence of external sources. As a hard determinist, I'd argue it's all entirely luck to the core. You're going to have a hard time drawing a line between luck and free will that people will ever agree on for the foreseeable future. > "Inequality is inevitable, it is natural, and its fair" Inevitable? I'd agree. Natural? In so much that it is the way of nature, yes. But nature isn't inherently good, it simply is. Fair? Doesn't seem like it is at all to me. Now we have to go neck deep into a discussion on the definition of fairness (please let's not actually here). > "Saying that luck is unfair is in my opinion a useless and even evil idea, it can be used to justify terrible acts." What acts are you referring to? I suspect that these terrible acts rely on far more interpretation beyond "luck is unfair". Those interpretations having flaws does not make this particular idea evil.

pedro_hab 9y ago
That's what I meant, trying to figure it out what's luck and whats isn't is impossible, as you put it > all entirely luck to the core But now how can you, or anyone else have a say in what is equal? It's all so complicated, trying to do anything about it is pointless, it feels to me as arrogant to think you can find a solution to all this. I think you are right, we should focus on the problem itself, instead of what's fair. Everything is luck, you have no control over your starting point. It's all random, to try to say you understand this is the same as saying you understand quantum mechanics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Feynman Now to say we can fix it with a system of redistribution of wealth is wishful thinking. I'd argue that this system will be unequal, and worse. Reminds me of my SO's siblings, they say my SO is successful because she had a father (showed up after she was 10 btw), or her mother liked her more, or some other reason, which sure has an effect. They had a pretty equal starting point, the are broke because they are losers, to say my wife must share her wealth with them is evil. I always hear the inequality card as "The losers want to be winners". Of course they want, now the question is it fair?
- adjkant 9y ago
  To your examples, I think your interpretation of inequality is a misconception people have on many sides (politically speaking) that perverts the definition, or rather misuses and does not consider justice within the context of equality. Obviously, your SO not directly sharing her wealth with others seems just, at least with the minimal details presented. But this implies that there is something that is fair. How do we determine that? You also bake in within your language a level of assigned responsibility to your SO's siblings. > "But now how can you, or anyone else have a say in what is equal?" I'd argue we all do. It's a philosophical question that may very well have an empirical answer. Perhaps a subjective one. Perhaps many subjective ones that share common traits. But the properties of equality in reference to fairness / justice are important things. The problem is we're still sorting out those properties, if any exist. --------------------------------------- With all that said, I would highly recommend reading some Rawls and playing around with his ideas. I think he presents some really interesting approaches to the problem. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, there is much progress made there in his work I think. While many attempts to correct the randomness (unfairness) of life can indeed make it worse, there are things that can work, and we shouldn't give up the pursuit entirely. There is such a thing as degrees of fairness, and for every problem nature's degree of fairness is just that - random. Some we can't realistically expect to beat, and others are things I would argue we should focus on. While I don't want the definition of fairness to be a focus of the post, I do think time spent there is well worth it generally. This post is more getting at why the definition is important though, as "what is fairness" is a huge can of worms.
  - pedro_hab 9y ago
    Yes, it's a complex matter, I do not think I know the answers and I'm curious on what the future holds. And I might read more into it. My gut says we have seen what works, I'd argue that freedom has shown as the best approach to poverty, the only approach I personally have seen so far (keep in mind I am not a researcher in this). "Socialist" ideas have been tried and even when it "works" it's not clear that it did. Where freedom (read capitalism) is crystal clear (like it or not). Whatever degree of freedom is given to socialist/communist societies we clearly see improvements. (off tangent much, sry) But to be concrete, every wealthy country I know of used freedom to get where it is. I'm from Brazil, I see how these inequality ideas are sold there, how wealth distribution is holding us back. Enabling people to do what they want is proven to work, allow them to enjoy the spoils of it is proven too, some things will look unfair, that's the way nature is. Putting our fate in the hands of other is not an idea I see of value, the state is controlled by people, and these people are, like ourselves deeply flawed.
Pica_soO 9y ago
They do not have a aristocratic caste holding back- lots of innovation in ancient greek for example happened, because entrapeneurs escaped with boats to different shores and founded colonys. Look at the valley today, its a Hacker culture gone sour. Hacking today means, ripping a preexisting value cycle from the old elite, and with the lowest possible effort turn it into - the same cycle with you in control. Those "Making the world a better place" (for themselves) laugh about those actually contributing by obsessing over tech (the usefool toolfools). The true motto of this party is "noblesse oblige" and you can hear it in every subtle comment on how the commoners chose your app, your system and would have opted out if it was that horrible. Those people of different neuronal colour - they need our help and guidance. Its stagnation at the worst possible moment, and the best you can do against that is disrupt the taking over of old value cycles with laws. Which is again problematic, because another, older Tinkerculture gone sour (called lawyers) hijacked the legislative process. The extrem inequality of aristocratic societys usually comes down when natures limits are reached- and cant be breached due to a lack of innovative tools and methods. If you do not invest in chemistry - the castle will burn- if you do the castle will be blown to smitherens with fertilizer- so you dont until the hunger games start.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  I found myself lacking to fully understand this. I sort of got the idea that you are fond with freedom with the greek story. But then I sense a little disregard for the free market with the > "commoners chose your app", and how there is a circle trying to be privileged at expense of others. Do you mean the state (with laws) should fix this circle?

dvt 9y ago

If you agree with Dworkin's distinction between "justified inequality of resources" and "unjustified inequality of resources" -- which I think is the only nontrivial part of this equation -- then the argument follows without too much difficulty. So to argue that the argument is invalid, you'd have to show why you think there's no such thing as "(un)justified inequality of resources." The fact that inequality is inevitable or natural doesn't have bearing on the justification of distribution (or non-distribution) of wealth any more than the eventual heat death of the universe has on getting a tetanus shot after you stepped on a rusty nail.

pedro_hab 9y ago
So you really believe that even though inequality is a constant, it's everywhere, it's unstoppable. Even then there is still space to try to fix it? It's not a bug it's a feature. (Software dev here :)) I heard someone calling it cosmic justice, which seems to fit pretty well. Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Everyone ended poorer as a consequence of trying to fix this, thinking everyone has a right to have something is evil.
- dvt 9y ago
  Death is a constant, it's everywhere, it's unstoppable, and yet people still take medicine, get vaccinated, and go to the doctor. I'm not sure I understand your argument.
  - pedro_hab 9y ago
    The point was that it's too complicated, trying to fix is pointless, my point is that it is not fixable, if you accept that is a problem, even in a perfect wealth redistribution system, there will be luck involved. But I also make the point that it is not a problem to begin with, I think inequality makes sense, me having more that my peers when I went where they wouldn't seems fair.
- state_less 9y ago
  > Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Inequality might be bad for a variety of reasons, and not solely based on some notion of evil. A common reason cited is the lack of efficiency it can create in a market. A dominant player might suck the money velocity out of the system (i.e. take everyone's money) without some sort of redistribution mechanism. The market could lose it's vibrancy as players go into a simple sustenance mode or be destroyed. I think dvt points to the injustice side too, you can have inequality due to unjust actions. For example, if you use your dominant position to tilt the playing field in your favor with to the detriment of the system as a whole. An example might be to pay lawmakers to make a tax loophole for yourself, or worse, be given some sort of grant for being dominant, just because you can.