3 ms·

And while anyone can observe the very significant differences in income and wealth among individuals, on its own that observation implies nothing under the cons

And while anyone can observe the very significant differences in income and wealth among individuals, on its own that observation implies nothing under the constrained vision in which “equality” is seen as a “process characteristic” (everyone is treated equally), but is proof positive of injustice in the unconstrained vision, where equality is seen as a “result characteristic” (everyone achieves equal outcomes). I think she puts her finger on a really fundamental divide here. I see variations on this theme argued about constantly, and neither side seems influenced by the other's arguments. On one extreme a rich man's wealth is evidence of his good character, on the other, his bad character. These world views can't be reconciled except by moral contortionists. If we let each camp vote for their own government the results would be at least as different as Kamala and Donald.

cbogie 2y ago
‘views can’t be reconciled’ doesn’t leave room for much nuance or contextualising
- delichon 2y ago
  This article is attempting just that.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    I think it’s trying to explain why there’s no room. There’s only so much room in the grab bag. Or only so many nodes on the tree.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aebtebeten 2y ago
Going a little further with this idea: how well do unequal outcomes reflect equal treatment? People like Pareto would say some people get better outcomes only because they make better life decisions; people like Veblen would say some people get better outcomes because they make better life decisions, like the decision of which parents to be born to. It's highly likely that outcomes reflect both decisions and chance (including initial aptitudes for decision making), but I'm unsure anyone to this point has been able to demonstrate what the breakdown between those two factors might be. (and indeed Pareto predicted that people will tend to fundamentally lean to favouring one or the other explanation, and only secondarily come up with rationalisations that support their basic worldview)
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  In fairness, honest evaluations of those factors is nearly impossible for humans. We all have some level of emotion that affects our thinking in this regard. I’ve not seen anyone convince the girl who got into Stanford or Harvard with straight A’s and a 36 ACT; that the girl who also got straight A’s and a 36, but didn’t get in, was less privileged. (After all, the girl that didn’t get in likely landed at Northwestern or Duke, or what have you.) The Harvard/Stanford person will almost always reliably come up with reasons outside of privilege that they were selected. As would most of us if we were in that position. It’s almost human nature level impulses evoking our thoughts in these kinds of situations.
- punpunia 2y ago
  What is the difference between 'decision' and 'chance'? What 'decisions' we make are illusions created by chance; discourse is saturated with this false dichotomy.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that all is predetermined? Or have I misunderstood? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd#Fate_in_Germanic_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd#Fate_in_Germanic_mytholog... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#:~:text=Democritus%20held%20that,churning%20in%20chaos%2c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#:~:text=Democritus%... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Fire_as_symbolic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Fire_as_symbolic or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Hinduism or ???
    - punpunia 2y ago
      Yes, or rather, that things are determined. I think such an idea is plainly correct. The idea that people have the ability to 'make decisions' or to 'do otherwise' has no physical or even logical basis. It is the kind of life-centric thinking that we are special bits of matter that somehow has some ability to transcend cause and effect. Most philosophers resolved this by redefining free will to mean something other than 'the ability to do otherwise' since that definition is logically incoherent.
yapyap 2y ago
I see where you’re coming from on this one but what is the other option?

cbogie 2y ago

‘views can’t be reconciled’ doesn’t leave room for much nuance or contextualising

delichon 2y ago
This article is attempting just that.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  I think it’s trying to explain why there’s no room. There’s only so much room in the grab bag. Or only so many nodes on the tree.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aebtebeten 2y ago

Going a little further with this idea: how well do unequal outcomes reflect equal treatment? People like Pareto would say some people get better outcomes only because they make better life decisions; people like Veblen would say some people get better outcomes because they make better life decisions, like the decision of which parents to be born to. It's highly likely that outcomes reflect both decisions and chance (including initial aptitudes for decision making), but I'm unsure anyone to this point has been able to demonstrate what the breakdown between those two factors might be. (and indeed Pareto predicted that people will tend to fundamentally lean to favouring one or the other explanation, and only secondarily come up with rationalisations that support their basic worldview)

bilbo0s 2y ago
In fairness, honest evaluations of those factors is nearly impossible for humans. We all have some level of emotion that affects our thinking in this regard. I’ve not seen anyone convince the girl who got into Stanford or Harvard with straight A’s and a 36 ACT; that the girl who also got straight A’s and a 36, but didn’t get in, was less privileged. (After all, the girl that didn’t get in likely landed at Northwestern or Duke, or what have you.) The Harvard/Stanford person will almost always reliably come up with reasons outside of privilege that they were selected. As would most of us if we were in that position. It’s almost human nature level impulses evoking our thoughts in these kinds of situations.
punpunia 2y ago
What is the difference between 'decision' and 'chance'? What 'decisions' we make are illusions created by chance; discourse is saturated with this false dichotomy.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Are you suggesting that all is predetermined? Or have I misunderstood? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd#Fate_in_Germanic_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd#Fate_in_Germanic_mytholog... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#:~:text=Democritus%20held%20that,churning%20in%20chaos%2c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#:~:text=Democritus%... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Fire_as_symbolic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Fire_as_symbolic or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Hinduism or ???
  - punpunia 2y ago
    Yes, or rather, that things are determined. I think such an idea is plainly correct. The idea that people have the ability to 'make decisions' or to 'do otherwise' has no physical or even logical basis. It is the kind of life-centric thinking that we are special bits of matter that somehow has some ability to transcend cause and effect. Most philosophers resolved this by redefining free will to mean something other than 'the ability to do otherwise' since that definition is logically incoherent.

yapyap 2y ago

I see where you’re coming from on this one but what is the other option?