Egalitarianism

Post Reply New Topic

There was one study done with monkeys and they made cocaine available to them - those lower down on the totem pole were more inclined to use the cocaine to deal with the drudgery of their lot. This is just one example of the dangers of inequality.

The way to make people healthier is to de-emphasise hierarchy as much as possible, to stop the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality as much as possible, for people doing all sorts of work to be told that their work is of value and not be looked own upon.

Society can more than afford to provide bread for all, for we benefit from centuries of accumulated knowledge, from the work of people now dead, as well as the work of machines and robots. There's plenty to go around. This isn't a matter of feeding one to starve another. It should mean something that we are no longer in the Middle Ages - I see conservatives look back to the 19th century as a time to which we should for some reason return... what ridiculousness. Perhaps they should volunteer to undergo surgery without anaesthetic with the finest surgeons being those who were the fastest, as it was in those days...

Why is egalitarianism popular? Because nobody wants to follow a philosophy that would oppress them. A philosophy that promises everyone the opportunity to raise themselves up hardly needs advertising to sell.

If instead you want to sell a philosophy that group X deserves better than group Y, either you must accept that group Y will disagree with you, or you must bend the truth by phrasing your philosophy in such a way that everyone listening believes themselves to be in group X even if they aren't.

I suggest we include Rawls and Nozick in the mix. Now that should prove interesting.

To one who is considered to be less than average in society, egalitarianism sounds good; of course, it sounds less good to one who is considered to be better than average. I think it is a persons position in society that controls his opinion here more than any philosophical ideal. Peoples opinion on this question have a tendency of changing as their position in society changes.

If you ask me, I would say that everybody deserves equal oppurtunity because Life is sacred, and all living things deserve a certain degree of respect. Why hold life sacred? I dunno. But most religions, philosophies, and gut feelings agree it is.

equality of outcome, however, is, in my eyes, an immoral goal.

PC-thiking has become a big runaway monster that, in a misguided attempt to make everything fair has made everything rigged.

the problem is furthered in that, even considering those things we can agree everyone deserves, giving it to everyone in the same way will not produce equality of oppurtunity. take for example education: school is a structured, conformist, soul-crushing NAZI DEATH CAM-... sorry, a little pent-up rage there. School is a structured enviroment, but not everybody learns best in such an enviroment, so by providing the same schooling to everybody, you are actually making things less equal, because those who do not learn best in that enviroment are being set up to fail, and wind up locked in a small room by the teacher because the got up from their seat without permission MY PENCIL ROLLED OFF MY DESK YOU PARANOID OLD-... sorry.

Thus, egalitaranism is ultimatly a self-sabotouging endevour so long as we are unwilling to devote not only the money and beuacracy, but the time and planning to make it work. But while money and beuacracy are two things few goverments seem reluctant to spend on the practice, time and planning seem to be rarely spent on anything. Thus, you will always wind up with people like me, who have been turned into embittered misanthropes by a poorly thought out practice.

I find it hard to understand people who say that they have AS being against egalitarianism. The lack of egalitarianism is a system of rigid hierarchy, where those higher up can mercilessly violate those below. AS people usually don't fare too well in such a setup. I'm sure there are smart people who complain about how the Procrustean setup at school set them back and that their talents should have been better recognised, well, the more unequal world does not reward simply intelligence, it rewards those who are better at manipulating others, those with superior social skills. The popular people are the ones who are selected to be supreme in a highly stratified hierarchical system, not those who are simply smart.

I don't see it inconsistent with egalitarianism to recognise the talents of people. It's simply that we won't horribly crush those whose talents are not valued, and remember, they are more inclined to recognise the talents of the popular and the socially proficient, which usually does not include AS people.

Some seem to think that egalitarianism means that everyone is treated exactly the same and asked to do the same things despite their differences. This is not so. Egalitarianism is about doing something about the pecking orders under which those below are treated very, very badly and who are told that they deserve all the abuse they get, even though many do jobs that are required for the functioning of society. More equal societies are healthier societies and better places to live, which is one reason why the Teabaggers are so evil. As far as I'm concerned, they are murderers.

There are still too many ideas in some places of master races and servant races and how being born of certain families makes people superior.