3 ms·

Could you explain more why you think absolute equality of outcome should be a goal for humanity? I understand and support the argument that we should not penali

Could you explain more why you think absolute equality of outcome should be a goal for humanity? I understand and support the argument that we should not penalise people for being unfortunate enough to be born in less advantaged circumstances, through nationality, parental resources or genetic abilities. However it seems unreasonable for example to seek equal outcomes between person A who spends their time studying (deferring gratification) and person B who spends their time in leisure activities. Or person A who saves for retirement and person B who spends all the money. This is not from a moral perspective, but just in terms of how we wish to incentivise behaviour.

Iv 7y ago
Why do you read "absolute equality of outcome" when I write "similar outcomes"? That's called a strawman. When in doubt, just wonder how to balance liberty, equality, fraternity. Do you want to reward kids who study well? I bet. Do you want adults dying on the street for their choices when they were 10 year old? Maybe not. And this is exactly a moral perspective: you are deciding who deserves what. You may argue that from a practical perspective we can't give equal outcomes to everybody, and I agree with that. Which is why my first message emphasizes the fact that this is a goal, an objective to strive toward. Inequalities and the desire to get more are what fuels our society today, so as long as we have the current organization, we will have some amount of that. The moral choices of making equality a worthwhile goal says that we still want to minimize inequalities as much as possible.