4 ms·

This is a great point to which I don't really have an answer, just a question. Why do we define justice as everyone having the same (or roughly the same within

by koide 5y ago

This is a great point to which I don't really have an answer, just a question. Why do we define justice as everyone having the same (or roughly the same within certain thresholds)? I mean, I can totally see that everyone having more or less the same is a good thing. But that is not necessarily a just thing. A related point is why are we seeing equality as something desirable? We don't even question it anymore. This is a rather new development in the last 400 years or so and came about after Europeans arrived at America and started interacting with the natives, which had this equality concept much more advanced than what was common in Europe at the time. This also leads to the recognition of differences between people. What does it mean for us to be equal? I run slower than you, should I carry the urgent message over the mountains because we're equal? Sorry to just add questions, but I think they are important questions people don't usually ask.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"A related point is why are we seeing equality as something desirable?" Should everyone be equal before the law? Is it possible if half the population can't afford a lawyer? Should everyone's vote count? How does Democracy survive when a small group of people own half the country?
- koide 5y ago
  That's but one version of equality. Equality under the law (both your examples may arguably fall here), but we also have equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality by mean reduction. I personally agree that equality under the law is indeed desirable but some other types aren't. Which ones are good and which aren't should be made explicit. Then we can talk about how to increase the good equalities and reduce the bad ones.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    They don't exist in isolation, once inequality in capital gets large enough, it is impossible to accomplish equality of opportunity, or of anything at all between: 1- a child of a billionaire that had private tutoring and connections 2 - a child that grew up in poverty and was malnurished, didn't recieve proper education or attention from parents because they were working two jobs or perished in some kind of tragedy
    - koide 5y ago
      Yeah, as you show, full equality is unreachable. Even without the capital differences. Some people will have traumas or accidents or just bad genetics that will end up in inequalities. The thing is to have a destination, a goal. Which equalities are worth fighting for?
MrPatan 5y ago
> Why do we define justice as everyone having the same Envy. But it is not a new feature of human nature. So my question is: Why is it only now (for about the last 100 years) such a popular and successful ideology? What has changed? Is it mass media? Or is it not a new thing at all, but things happen at a bigger scale? Meaning, before you'd maybe get envy bursts that'd devastate a village or a tribe, and that'd be it, now you get it at the country and planet level?
- koide 5y ago
  I'd say it's more than that. Culture has changed and morphed into something where we feel we are entitled to a lot, just because we exist. I don't think our culture a few hundred years ago was like that. Did we see revolts in the medieval Europe because the king had too much? Not for that exact reason, as far as I know. Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever. Compare that to the American dream where literally everybody has the ability to get rich (in theory, but the point is that now the "peasants" in general want to get rich).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever. This is a projection. Revolts are as old as power and inequalities. For the most well-known/well-studied of those, see this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts (it's important to understand that most revolts are silently crushed and never documented, and that even for those that were documented in their time we did not necessarily keep good track of those documents over the centuries)
    - koide 5y ago
      Social inequality is listed as one factor among many. Do you know of revolts that were specifically about inequality? The ones I checked from the list were mostly religious, agricultural or nationalistic in nature. The ones I saw that could maybe be about inequality are due to the ruler being obnoxiously unjust or being unable to provide substenance. I wasn't saying revolts didn't exist, just that they weren't about wanting to be rich.

by koide 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"A related point is why are we seeing equality as something desirable?" Should everyone be equal before the law? Is it possible if half the population can't afford a lawyer? Should everyone's vote count? How does Democracy survive when a small group of people own half the country?

koide 5y ago
That's but one version of equality. Equality under the law (both your examples may arguably fall here), but we also have equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality by mean reduction. I personally agree that equality under the law is indeed desirable but some other types aren't. Which ones are good and which aren't should be made explicit. Then we can talk about how to increase the good equalities and reduce the bad ones.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  They don't exist in isolation, once inequality in capital gets large enough, it is impossible to accomplish equality of opportunity, or of anything at all between: 1- a child of a billionaire that had private tutoring and connections 2 - a child that grew up in poverty and was malnurished, didn't recieve proper education or attention from parents because they were working two jobs or perished in some kind of tragedy
  - koide 5y ago
    Yeah, as you show, full equality is unreachable. Even without the capital differences. Some people will have traumas or accidents or just bad genetics that will end up in inequalities. The thing is to have a destination, a goal. Which equalities are worth fighting for?

MrPatan 5y ago

> Why do we define justice as everyone having the same Envy. But it is not a new feature of human nature. So my question is: Why is it only now (for about the last 100 years) such a popular and successful ideology? What has changed? Is it mass media? Or is it not a new thing at all, but things happen at a bigger scale? Meaning, before you'd maybe get envy bursts that'd devastate a village or a tribe, and that'd be it, now you get it at the country and planet level?

koide 5y ago
I'd say it's more than that. Culture has changed and morphed into something where we feel we are entitled to a lot, just because we exist. I don't think our culture a few hundred years ago was like that. Did we see revolts in the medieval Europe because the king had too much? Not for that exact reason, as far as I know. Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever. Compare that to the American dream where literally everybody has the ability to get rich (in theory, but the point is that now the "peasants" in general want to get rich).
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever. This is a projection. Revolts are as old as power and inequalities. For the most well-known/well-studied of those, see this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts (it's important to understand that most revolts are silently crushed and never documented, and that even for those that were documented in their time we did not necessarily keep good track of those documents over the centuries)
  - koide 5y ago
    Social inequality is listed as one factor among many. Do you know of revolts that were specifically about inequality? The ones I checked from the list were mostly religious, agricultural or nationalistic in nature. The ones I saw that could maybe be about inequality are due to the ruler being obnoxiously unjust or being unable to provide substenance. I wasn't saying revolts didn't exist, just that they weren't about wanting to be rich.