4 ms·

I think you have kind of answered it there in your own response. It is indeed obvious from a moral standpoint. Why you chose to put moral in quotes is kind of i

by mhoad 6y ago

I think you have kind of answered it there in your own response. It is indeed obvious from a moral standpoint. Why you chose to put moral in quotes is kind of interesting to me, it's not inherently a less valid standpoint, hell, I would argue it's a more valid standpoint than many. But fundamentally, yes, this is an argument about two things: 1. Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs [1] and historically when that has happened in the past violence has followed, therefore I think it would be better that we had the conversation about it now. 2. I think it is fair to ask questions about what kind of moral and ethical lines have been crossed in order to reach a net worth of $171 billion dollars. We as a society are within our rights to take moments like this as a time to stop and ask some questions about if "the system" is working in a way that seems fair to some or fair to the majority and ideally even all. I'm not offering an answer on that one just prompting a moment of reflection. [1] https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never...

artemonster 6y ago
well, something being obvious does not make it an axiom, not worth of an argument and/or a proof. in fact, there are many examples "obviously right" views that can be proven wrong. Thank you for the points you've provided, I agree with them totally. I just wanted to see what kind of logic stood behind your opinion, that's it :)
kolbe 6y ago
"Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Many people also routinely watch the Kardashians. We're trying to get at the root of a moral right, and citing what "most people" think is basically irrelevant. "Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Citation that shows causal relationship is needed here.
- mhoad 6y ago
  I'm trying to have a serious conversation here and you're talking about "many people also watch the Kardashians" as some kind of counter argument. Can we do this without the snark? It's not worth engaging otherwise. Do you even consider inequality to be a problem in society and if so do you have any thoughts on what we should do about it?
  - tosers4 6y ago
    Inequality is not an issue. Poverty is an issue. What's the problem with there beeing people with 100000 times my NW? specially if it's a guy that created one of the biggest business on the planet? The problem is there being persons that can't afford to eat, but blaming bezos would only be fair if the way he got his money actually contributed to the lack of basic needs meet by the needed.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      I think saying poverty is the issue is heading in the right direction, but I would even go further and say that poverty is not the issue, but that conditions not improving over time is the issue. Most humans (except maybe Buddhists and Daoists) are on a hedonic treadmill. So long as their condition today is better than it was yesterday, they generally derive greater contentment than being better off in absolute terms and then plateauing. This "most people were better off over time" is the stuff stable societies are made of. It's why post WWII America did so well. It's why China has been doing well for 20-30 years now. When most everyone is doing better today than yesterday and believes they will be doing better tomorrow than today, they are content. Even poverty is tolerable if things are improving over time because you adjust your expectations. The lack of improvement over time is what makes prisons for example such an awful punishment. You're placed in a state where your conditions are not only worse in absolute terms but there is no prospect of it really improving until your really.
      - tosers4 6y ago
        I see, it does make perfect sense, thank you. I also think that too much information or mis-informations, or simply bias or selective information can damage the way you perceive if thinks are getting better or worse, but that's another topic.
      - mhoad 6y ago
        I worry this question will sound snarky and it's not my intent but have you ever actually experienced what real poverty is like?
malandrew 6y ago
Every time someone argues in favor of equality as an unquestionable good I have to ask: Have you done a thought experiment where you have a perfectly equal society? Like tomorrow imagine that all the world's wealth was equally distributed for a moment. Now play out the scenario into the future one year, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years. Think about all the unintended consequences of that policy. What does it mean for those that now have power? What does it mean for those that do not? Is the equality maintainable? How are decisions made? Other than maybe land, is the wealth that has value today even valuable any more once divided equally and everyone has it? From the point in time where the wealth is divided equally, does it increase or decrease globally from that point forward? Why or why not? How does the change in incentives change people and change the world? Now this thought experiment should be the most extreme end but not misaligned with what many people think is ideal. Ideal doesn't mean workable and it's important to explore what aspects are workable and what are not because if we're going to chase something utopian on paper, we better well understand the unintended consequences. My bet is that anyone that honestly pursues this line of thinking and really considers the second and third order effects, that they'll quickly discover lots of problems and come to the conclusion that like extreme inequality, extreme equality is also bad over time, and it's only after coming to that conclusion do they concern themselves with the better question "how much inequality is the right amount of inequality and what kinds of inequality are in everyone's best interest? Anyone that has spent time really pondering Rawls' thought experiments such as the original position and veil of ignorance should be right at home here.
- voisin 6y ago
  > Like tomorrow imagine that all the world's wealth was equally distributed for a moment. This is a straw man. No one is arguing equal distribution of all wealth. Any sane observer is arguing the historic levels of inequality are a cause of many undesirable social issues.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    It's a thought exercise presented in socratic style so that someone learns to recognize the problems with the other extreme. Only when you see the dilemmas that exist at both extremes do you start figuring out where the balance it. When someone is fighting equality with no hedging in their argument, that's usually a sign that they haven't considered what happens if they achieve what they are arguing for. I'm not arguing that extreme inequality is good. It's bad in the same way extreme equality is bad. Once you recognize both are bad and why they are bad, you're more free to explore where you believe the balance point should be. My personal view is that the problem isn't that we have a power law distribution (1/x). My view is that a distribution of 100/x is preferable to one of 1/x. The difference in equality from the top to the bottom can be extreme so long as the distribution between the two contains lots of people fairly evenly spread out and there is the possibility for someone to move up and down on that distribution on their own volition and effort. This produces a society that will produce productivity benefits that over time improve the conditions of those worst off.
edanm 6y ago
With your point 1 I can somewhat agree. Yes, inequality certainly seems pretty high - I'm not sure that's a slam dunk case that it's morally wrong, but it's certainly something worth thinking about and deciding whether we want to do something about. But here's where I lose you: > 2. I think it is fair to ask questions about what kind of moral and ethical lines have been crossed in order to reach a net worth of $171 billion dollars. Why? I mean, sure, it's always a fair question to ask if moral lines have been crossed, but why do you assume that amassing great wealth is in in itself morally wrong, or only happens if you do immoral things? That's at least the implication I take from your statements. Many people who are making the median wage in the States (as an example) have vastly more wealth than the poorest people in the world. Did they do something immoral? Not really. Maybe the "system" itself is immoral or something (though I'd love to hear an actual suggestion of a better system), but why start off assuming there's a moral failure instead of just "here's the way things work, ok looks like it leads to some pretty bad outcomes, let's try and think how we minimize those". Why start name-calling instead?

by mhoad 6y ago

artemonster 6y ago

well, something being obvious does not make it an axiom, not worth of an argument and/or a proof. in fact, there are many examples "obviously right" views that can be proven wrong. Thank you for the points you've provided, I agree with them totally. I just wanted to see what kind of logic stood behind your opinion, that's it :)

kolbe 6y ago

"Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Many people also routinely watch the Kardashians. We're trying to get at the root of a moral right, and citing what "most people" think is basically irrelevant. "Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Citation that shows causal relationship is needed here.

mhoad 6y ago
I'm trying to have a serious conversation here and you're talking about "many people also watch the Kardashians" as some kind of counter argument. Can we do this without the snark? It's not worth engaging otherwise. Do you even consider inequality to be a problem in society and if so do you have any thoughts on what we should do about it?
- tosers4 6y ago
  Inequality is not an issue. Poverty is an issue. What's the problem with there beeing people with 100000 times my NW? specially if it's a guy that created one of the biggest business on the planet? The problem is there being persons that can't afford to eat, but blaming bezos would only be fair if the way he got his money actually contributed to the lack of basic needs meet by the needed.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    I think saying poverty is the issue is heading in the right direction, but I would even go further and say that poverty is not the issue, but that conditions not improving over time is the issue. Most humans (except maybe Buddhists and Daoists) are on a hedonic treadmill. So long as their condition today is better than it was yesterday, they generally derive greater contentment than being better off in absolute terms and then plateauing. This "most people were better off over time" is the stuff stable societies are made of. It's why post WWII America did so well. It's why China has been doing well for 20-30 years now. When most everyone is doing better today than yesterday and believes they will be doing better tomorrow than today, they are content. Even poverty is tolerable if things are improving over time because you adjust your expectations. The lack of improvement over time is what makes prisons for example such an awful punishment. You're placed in a state where your conditions are not only worse in absolute terms but there is no prospect of it really improving until your really.
    - tosers4 6y ago
      I see, it does make perfect sense, thank you. I also think that too much information or mis-informations, or simply bias or selective information can damage the way you perceive if thinks are getting better or worse, but that's another topic.
    - mhoad 6y ago
      I worry this question will sound snarky and it's not my intent but have you ever actually experienced what real poverty is like?

malandrew 6y ago

Every time someone argues in favor of equality as an unquestionable good I have to ask: Have you done a thought experiment where you have a perfectly equal society? Like tomorrow imagine that all the world's wealth was equally distributed for a moment. Now play out the scenario into the future one year, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years. Think about all the unintended consequences of that policy. What does it mean for those that now have power? What does it mean for those that do not? Is the equality maintainable? How are decisions made? Other than maybe land, is the wealth that has value today even valuable any more once divided equally and everyone has it? From the point in time where the wealth is divided equally, does it increase or decrease globally from that point forward? Why or why not? How does the change in incentives change people and change the world? Now this thought experiment should be the most extreme end but not misaligned with what many people think is ideal. Ideal doesn't mean workable and it's important to explore what aspects are workable and what are not because if we're going to chase something utopian on paper, we better well understand the unintended consequences. My bet is that anyone that honestly pursues this line of thinking and really considers the second and third order effects, that they'll quickly discover lots of problems and come to the conclusion that like extreme inequality, extreme equality is also bad over time, and it's only after coming to that conclusion do they concern themselves with the better question "how much inequality is the right amount of inequality and what kinds of inequality are in everyone's best interest? Anyone that has spent time really pondering Rawls' thought experiments such as the original position and veil of ignorance should be right at home here.

voisin 6y ago
> Like tomorrow imagine that all the world's wealth was equally distributed for a moment. This is a straw man. No one is arguing equal distribution of all wealth. Any sane observer is arguing the historic levels of inequality are a cause of many undesirable social issues.
- malandrew 6y ago
  It's a thought exercise presented in socratic style so that someone learns to recognize the problems with the other extreme. Only when you see the dilemmas that exist at both extremes do you start figuring out where the balance it. When someone is fighting equality with no hedging in their argument, that's usually a sign that they haven't considered what happens if they achieve what they are arguing for. I'm not arguing that extreme inequality is good. It's bad in the same way extreme equality is bad. Once you recognize both are bad and why they are bad, you're more free to explore where you believe the balance point should be. My personal view is that the problem isn't that we have a power law distribution (1/x). My view is that a distribution of 100/x is preferable to one of 1/x. The difference in equality from the top to the bottom can be extreme so long as the distribution between the two contains lots of people fairly evenly spread out and there is the possibility for someone to move up and down on that distribution on their own volition and effort. This produces a society that will produce productivity benefits that over time improve the conditions of those worst off.

edanm 6y ago

With your point 1 I can somewhat agree. Yes, inequality certainly seems pretty high - I'm not sure that's a slam dunk case that it's morally wrong, but it's certainly something worth thinking about and deciding whether we want to do something about. But here's where I lose you: > 2. I think it is fair to ask questions about what kind of moral and ethical lines have been crossed in order to reach a net worth of $171 billion dollars. Why? I mean, sure, it's always a fair question to ask if moral lines have been crossed, but why do you assume that amassing great wealth is in in itself morally wrong, or only happens if you do immoral things? That's at least the implication I take from your statements. Many people who are making the median wage in the States (as an example) have vastly more wealth than the poorest people in the world. Did they do something immoral? Not really. Maybe the "system" itself is immoral or something (though I'd love to hear an actual suggestion of a better system), but why start off assuming there's a moral failure instead of just "here's the way things work, ok looks like it leads to some pretty bad outcomes, let's try and think how we minimize those". Why start name-calling instead?