3 ms·

I don't think the goal is to build an "equal" society, which god knows will never work because people are just so different. I think the ideal goal is to build

I don't think the goal is to build an "equal" society, which god knows will never work because people are just so different. I think the ideal goal is to build a society which even the lowest members of society have their basic needs met, a meal, a roof, health care.

arez 8y ago
you just described the system of the scandinavian countries
maxxxxx 8y ago
I would go one step further and say that all levels of society should benefit on average equally from growth. It's ok that higher incomes get a larger share but that share shouldn't be growing disproportionately as it has done over the last decades.
claudiawerner 8y ago
This is correct; this is even what the socialists argued for[0] and at least according to SEP[1] there is only one identifiable proposal of a "perfect" equality (as some in this thread have taken it to be) in the history of philosophy. The confusion over what [in]equality means and what can or should be reduced is a sticking point in a lot of political debates. [0] "When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability. [...] It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals." - V.I. Lenin, "A Liberal Professor on Equality" (1914) [1] "Simple equality, meaning everyone being furnished with the same material level of goods and services, represents a strict position as far as distributive justice is concerned. It is generally rejected as untenable. Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality."

arez 8y ago

you just described the system of the scandinavian countries

maxxxxx 8y ago

I would go one step further and say that all levels of society should benefit on average equally from growth. It's ok that higher incomes get a larger share but that share shouldn't be growing disproportionately as it has done over the last decades.

claudiawerner 8y ago

This is correct; this is even what the socialists argued for[0] and at least according to SEP[1] there is only one identifiable proposal of a "perfect" equality (as some in this thread have taken it to be) in the history of philosophy. The confusion over what [in]equality means and what can or should be reduced is a sticking point in a lot of political debates. [0] "When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability. [...] It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals." - V.I. Lenin, "A Liberal Professor on Equality" (1914) [1] "Simple equality, meaning everyone being furnished with the same material level of goods and services, represents a strict position as far as distributive justice is concerned. It is generally rejected as untenable. Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality."