Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

The scenario on the right is better because everybody gets what they want. All three of them get to watch the game. That's a desirable result. "Equality" is irrelevant. I don't care if their results are "equal." I don't care if they were "given equal measures of opportunity." Equality is irrelevant. Getting what they want is what matters.

Okay, so what other people call equality you call "getting what you want" and economists call "Pareto improvement through redistribution and affirmative action."  You are rejecting the name but embracing the principle...

For example, imagine the situation without any boxes. Only the guy in blue is tall enough to see the game. The other two can't see the game. So you slap a blindfold on the tall guy so he can't see the game anymore either. Congratulations, you've made them "equal!"

But people affirmative action policies dont advocate for that...

[LordBucket]

That was quite convincing LB

Thank you. This tends to be a difficult discussion. The cult of equality is very deeply ingrained in some people. I've spoken with people who seriously believe it's better for everyone to suffer than for only a few to have what they want.

the fact is that not everyone can get everything.

Can't make more pie when you only have enough to make one

I suggest that your statements are beliefs of habit, rather than generally representative of the world. Sure, there might be some exceptional cases where you're correct. It would be difficult for everyone who wants it to be president of the united states, for example. Some things do exist in scarcity. But the things that exist in scarcity are a very small subset of the things we typically care about.

Just to give some obvious examples, is it possible that everybody could have enough food and water? Of course. Is it possible that everyone could have a place to live? Absolutely. Is it possible that every human being on earth could have a car a cellphone and a computer? Sure, there's plenty enough material to do that.

Material scarcity isn't really a problem. It's a big planet. But our economic systems are not very good at satisfying our desires. A lot of people still seem to be stuck competing for jobs they don't even want to get money to use to get other people to do work they also don't want to do. That system has served us well for a significant portion of our history, but I think we're about to the point where we can probably do better.

Okay, so what other people call equality you call "getting what you want" and economists call "Pareto improvement through redistribution and affirmative action."  You are rejecting the name but embracing the principle...

No. Try again.

But people affirmative action policies dont advocate for that...

My statements are nevertheless relevant.

Advocate: "I want X, so let's do Y"

Me: "No, you don't want X. X is not a desirable goal. For example, doing Z would also accomplish X, and you obviously don't want Z."

You: "They're not advocating Z."


Correct, they're not advocating Z. Nevertheless, X is still not a desirable goal, and Z is one possible example to demonstrate it.

[scrdest]

For example, imagine the situation without any boxes. Only the guy in blue is tall enough to see the game. The other two can't see the game. So you slap a blindfold on the tall guy so he can't see the game anymore either. Congratulations, you've made them "equal!"

But people affirmative action policies dont advocate for that...

The point isn't that they advocate it, it's that what it winds up being.

[mainiac]

The point isn't that they advocate it, it's that what it winds up being.

By the same logic I could say that people against afirmative action dont advocate for fascism, it's that what it winds up being.  Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.

[LordBucket]

The point isn't that they advocate it, it's that what it winds up being.

By the same logic I could say that people against afirmative action dont advocate for fascism, it's that what it winds up being.  Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.

Check my edit.

[mainiac]

It's still a slippery slope.  You are tarring anyone wearing a different political hat from you as inevitably leading to consequences of genre.

[nullBolt]

The point isn't that they advocate it, it's that what it winds up being.

By the same logic I could say that people against afirmative action dont advocate for fascism, it's that what it winds up being.  Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.

It's still a slippery slope.  You are tarring anyone wearing a different political hat from you as inevitably leading to consequences of genre.

Slippery slope fallacy doesn't mean what you think it means. Suggesting that the logic leads to a given conclusion isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

[scriver]

Since the pie symbolizes the everything available, making more pie wouldn't make more pie. It would still just be one pie.

[scrdest]

Since the pie symbolizes the everything available, making more pie wouldn't make more pie. It would still just be one pie.

Nope, it symbolizes everything currently available.

[SirQuiamus]

**SOPHISTRY INTENSIFIES**

Okay, two can play this game:

Let's say that we're stranded together on a tiny desert island in shark-infested waters, and we've got nothing to eat except a single can of tuna. We're both armed with similar handguns, so neither of us can claim the tuna by force. And no, we can't eat the sharks because they are bulletproof and/or inedible.

Now, from an utilitarian perspective, the preferred course of action for either of us would be to sacrifice himself for the other person, because maximizing the chances of survival for one person is better than minimizing them for two. I give you the tuna and shoot myself in the head, and you get to feast on my flesh until – hopefully – a search helicopter or whatever comes to the rescue.

This is a great plan on paper, but what if I don't want to go along with it? Do we shoot each other like desperados and throw away the last dregs of utility that could be salvaged from the situation? Or do we "amiably" share the tuna and "hope for the best" (or, more cynically, "agree to wait it out until the other guy drops dead from hunger")? If our initial conditions (armament, marksmanship, distance from the tuna can, amount of body fat...) are absolutely identical, there's no question that we'll go with the latter option – not because we decided on it, but because that's how "self-interested rational agents" act.

If this were a real-life situation, though, then of course our starting conditions would be different, as a simple matter of probability. For example, we might have a hundred cans of tuna on the island – in a locked crate to which only I have the key. And I might also have a fully-loaded .45 revolver, while you're empty-handed, butt-naked, and also much hungrier than I am. Whether or not it's rational to share my tuna with you is entirely up to debate: On one hand, two live people is more than one, and the utility of leftover tuna cans at the time of salvation is negligible... but on the other hand, I have no idea how long I'll have to sit around on this rock, so there's always the possibility that giving even one of these cans to you may result in my own starvation, which means zero people saved, which means minimum utility from an objective point of view. And of course, I really shouldn't waste time on this nonsense if I want to get the maximum nutritional utility out of your corpse...

What I'm saying, LB, is that everything is situational, and you would be very much in favour of equality in the latter scenario. And so would I, because I'm a person, not a bloody self-interested rational agent. We would share that fucking tuna 50/50 like good brothers, and I would shoot you and eat you only when driven mad by hunger.

[Ogdibus]

You guys aren't interpreting the image in a way that illustrates the situation that you are discussing.  The figures represent favorable circumstances for different classes of people.  Those circumstances are economic, cultural, and policy.  The top of the fence is the minimum standards of living and opportunity that a person should expect.  The boxes are policies that are meant to compensate for the inequity in favorable circumstances.

Equality can be about equal outcomes rather than equal commitment of resources.

If you are going to make a point about the topic based on the image, it should be about the heights of the figures, or the number of boxes that they should be standing on.  You could also argue that the boxes don't raise the figures, (the quotas don't work.)

[Antioch]

Yeah the picture isn't really a very good analogy for equality.

Let's say everyone is equally tall.
What if one guy took 2 boxes with him, the other 1 and the last guy none. What if we still redistributed the boxes but instead of a binary can/can't see the game they can barely look over the fence and its just a shitty way of watching the game.

Is it ok to punish the guys who brought the boxes because everyone should be equal? What if the last guy refuses to take any boxes with him because he knows the boxes other people bring are going to be redistributed anyway? Is this a system that encourages people to take boxes to see the game?

But then of course we have the scenario where someone IS actually shorter than the rest, is it ok to redistribute the boxes in that case so the small guy can see? (I mean in this case he is actually disadvantaged and its not of his own doing)


As usual the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There has to be a balance between personal responsibility and equality.

[nullBolt]

As Lee Kuan Yew said: "Humanity is not equal."

Which is true. Let's say I have a drug that would allow the dumbest person alive to be as clever as the smartest, but it had the same effect on people of all intelligence. So, the smartest would be an order of magnitude smarter than the dumbest.

Is it equal to give them all this drug? Is it fair to give them all this drug? What should I do?

Why should the smartest man not have his full potential realised because it would make the drug enhanced dumbest person look bad?

The crates thing is dishonest. It presents a binary situation (the ability to see / not see) that is very rare in the modern world. If I cannot reach the highest shelf because a short person needed one of my crates to reach the lowest, is that fair on me? You would deny me my great potential to give someone potential that is essentially meaningless.

You should not ask if it is fair to take the giant's crates away. You should ask if it is fair to cut his legs off.

[mainiac]

So there are cases where we dont want to use affirmative action.

Yes there are cases where we dont want to use affirmative action.  And there are cases where we do want to use affirmative action.  And we shouldn't try to imagine that we can label all cases one of there other.

[penguinofhonor]

Really, we should shoot the short guy and let the tall guy stand on his body. No matter what, the short man will never give the same back to society as the tall person for an equal investment of resources. So since everything he does is effectively a waste, it is ideal to prevent him from consuming any resources ever again.

The real question here is: should we also shoot the average guy? I'm leaning yes.