5 ms·

Well, I think what he's saying (which I don't necessarily disagree with) is that if I have everything I need, what difference does it make to me - besides jealo

Well, I think what he's saying (which I don't necessarily disagree with) is that if I have everything I need, what difference does it make to me - besides jealousy - if the guy down the street has more than he needs?

dragonwriter 8y ago
It's a common a priori moral argument about how many people think people should derive utility from material circumstances, sure, but “stop feeling pain from relative deprivation” is about as effective as “stop feeling pain from me twisting your arm”, even if you think it is morally obligatory for people to disregard having their arm twisted.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Yeah, parent post expressed it well. Probably better than me. I purposefully didn't say anyone should feel anything (and got flamed for being an absolutist for it). While it's how I personally feel, I think others should decide how they feel about it. Funny enough, framing the problem in a slightly different moral perspective leads to vast differences in how people feel about the situation.
FabHK 8y ago
Lots. 1. We are social creatures, not homines oeconomici whose utility function only includes our own consumption. (In fact, I feel that the argument you (and others) make comes from this mistaken Econ 101 idea that the simplifying economics assumption of a utility function only including own consumption is has normative character (ie we should only look at that). But it has neither positive (descriptive) nor normative character for actual humans.) 2. Extreme inequality jeopardises the democratic project, and corrodes the political process. 3. In the real world, higher inequality is linked to more crime. (Too lazy to find the reference now, but there's a recent book out on it.) 4. The jostling for status arguably leads to enormously wasteful spending (ie conspicuous consumption, ostentatious waste, etc.) 5. Life expectancy, health, happiness seem higher in more equal societies. You can't just dismiss these facts (some empirical, some philosophical) by "why should you care about what someone else has?". (Note: none of the above objections are dependent on a false "zero-sum" or "fixed-pie" argument.) In addition to Nozick, I recommend reading Rawls (or even better, somebody writing about Rawls - his "Theory of Justice" is very heavy reading, taking way too long to get to the points).
- darkerside 8y ago
  What's really disempowering is making utility a social responsibility instead of a personal one.

dragonwriter 8y ago

It's a common a priori moral argument about how many people think people should derive utility from material circumstances, sure, but “stop feeling pain from relative deprivation” is about as effective as “stop feeling pain from me twisting your arm”, even if you think it is morally obligatory for people to disregard having their arm twisted.

darkerside 8y ago
Yeah, parent post expressed it well. Probably better than me. I purposefully didn't say anyone should feel anything (and got flamed for being an absolutist for it). While it's how I personally feel, I think others should decide how they feel about it. Funny enough, framing the problem in a slightly different moral perspective leads to vast differences in how people feel about the situation.

FabHK 8y ago

Lots. 1. We are social creatures, not homines oeconomici whose utility function only includes our own consumption. (In fact, I feel that the argument you (and others) make comes from this mistaken Econ 101 idea that the simplifying economics assumption of a utility function only including own consumption is has normative character (ie we should only look at that). But it has neither positive (descriptive) nor normative character for actual humans.) 2. Extreme inequality jeopardises the democratic project, and corrodes the political process. 3. In the real world, higher inequality is linked to more crime. (Too lazy to find the reference now, but there's a recent book out on it.) 4. The jostling for status arguably leads to enormously wasteful spending (ie conspicuous consumption, ostentatious waste, etc.) 5. Life expectancy, health, happiness seem higher in more equal societies. You can't just dismiss these facts (some empirical, some philosophical) by "why should you care about what someone else has?". (Note: none of the above objections are dependent on a false "zero-sum" or "fixed-pie" argument.) In addition to Nozick, I recommend reading Rawls (or even better, somebody writing about Rawls - his "Theory of Justice" is very heavy reading, taking way too long to get to the points).

darkerside 8y ago
What's really disempowering is making utility a social responsibility instead of a personal one.