Equality and Justice, Part II

49 thoughts on Equality and Justice, Part II

1. The reduction of suffering is in my view the *point* of trying to create a just and egalitarian society.

   This.
   I think the most important thing, to start with, is for people of good will to be able to trust people of good will.

2. So, to summarize, for me equality requires that each person be free to choose what they believe is best for themselves, knowing that they will always have the resources they need to survive and that no one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own.

   Word.

   “The fundamental error of egalitarianism lies in supposing that it is morally important whether one person has less than another regardless of how much either of them has…”

   I don’t think I’ve ever heard a genuine egalitarian argue that everyone should be exactly the same in what they have for the sake of equalization. What an odd straw man.

3. Similarly to your comparing equality with justice, The New Yorker here discusses what is fair versus what would actually be helpful to resolve the European Economic Crisis:

   Human nature is odd.

4. New Yorker article

   not sure why the linky didn’t post. Let’s try again.

5. Instead of focusing our attention on who has what, he believes we should put our efforts towards making sure that everyone has enough. When everyone has enough to satisfy their needs, Sufficiencians (okay, I totally made that up, but we’ll just go with it) believe that we won’t care if there are others who have more.

   I don’t have much to say because all the philosophy stuff makes my eyes cloud over, but to this…this is just incorrect psychologically. It’s why you see people who earn a million dollars a year care so much about earning even more. All the people they live around might have more, so they need to outdo each other.

6. this is just incorrect psychologically.

   Yeah, that’s pretty much what everyone says to Frankfurt. And I agree with you. Research shows that we’re not (currently) built like that. But maybe someday, in an alternate universe, where we’re all penguins…

7. Kristen J, I think I’m a Sufficiencian, too. This is why I can never be in charge of the revolution. Way too much bloodshed when others won’t comply and insist on having more!more!more! Roll on the alternative penguin universe!

8. I highly, highly recommend Elizabeth Anderson’s article, “What is the point of equality?” Fantastic piece on the nature of egalitarianism.

9. @Patrick,

   Yes, that’s an awesome article. I was able to find a link to the Anderson article.

10. So, to summarize, for me equality requires that each person be free to choose what they believe is best for themselves, knowing that they will always have the resources they need to survive and that no one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own.

    Not to beat a dead horse but this is Sen, who incidentally, was the first to establish the phenomenon of the “missing women” in Asia:

    These numbers tell us, quietly, a terrible story of inequality and neglect leading to the excess mortality of women.

    and consequently (not the first to do this) argue the biggest priority for development efforts should be educating girls.

11. I was taking Public Sector Economics in the Fall of 2008. I had a classmate who was a staunch free market Republican and we often had impassioned debates during the seminar. It would nearly always circle around to why we shouldn’t intervene in the economy. My trump question was “why does the health of the economy and the accumulation of wealth trump the immediate needs of real people?”

    Of course, his response was if you hurt the economy you wouldn’t be to (continue to) meet their real needs but as the semester progressed and the utter rottenness of the whole system became apparent as the financial sector crashed, he was increasingly easier to persuade. At the end of the semester he told me I might make a socialist out of him yet.

    Unfortunately, we have largely forgotten the outrage about what we learned in 2008 and can’t seem to muster any about the latest round of revelations, particularly the LIBOR manipulation, which has some effect on almost everyone who borrowed money — including using a credit card.

12. But our view of who is suffering and the depth of that suffering is linked to social norms. At the margins people whose suffering didn’t fall into the appropriate categories might easily be left behind.

    That’s why I’m leery about the creation and maintenance of ‘categories’. (Full disclosure: I’m a cis het white man.) I think that when you think of people in terms of what ‘category’ they’re in, that creates a distorted way of looking at people. Sometimes I feel that feminists don’t see the real me because I’m categorized as a “man”. (On the other hand, I could be full of shit here, so feel free to explain things to me. (Without too much snark.))

13. I think that feminism has claimed a large enough part of the public and private sphere that, within the feminist blog-o-sphere, men should be able to express what they actually think with the same freedom that women do.

14. (I don’t know if that last is a derail or not. The question I posed may go well beyond the scope of this post.)

15. @Miguel, I wouldn’t say that there aren’t any feminists that reject men’s challenges out of hand but in my experience the discussions of equality come with the reminder it isn’t a competition for who has it the worst.

    Most definitely some groups have objectively suffered more than others but the experience of being disadvantaged is bad regardless of the degree and to a certain extent when we are talking about the philosophical underpinning of the search for equality (what are we seeking to equalize?) quantification beyond “a lot” or “a little” is superfluous. It is when you get down to policy that making choices about using limited resources that we have to decide whose problem is most important to address.

    I would hazard to guess that a reason you feel feminists reject your experience out of hand as a cis hetero white male is that in our (my, I really should just speak for myself) experience even the most enlightened cis hetero white males underestimate their privilege as I am sure that I do, as a cis hetero white female. I don’t understand it as malicious or intentional at all but it is frustrating to have to continually assert that “no, really, this is more difficult for someone who isn’t cis white hetero male.” Scalzi’s explanation is probably the best I’ve ever read (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

    Just a quick example, I traveled to a conference recently and I had taken my wedding ring off (yet another source of privilege easily forgotten) the night before I left and forgot to put it back on. I was chatting with a couple of men and I mentioned how I don’t like to travel alone without my ring. Implied was that it is because it reduces the number of interactions with men in which I am uncomfortable because I am alone in a strange place. It does not happen so very often but it has enough that this is something I have in mind. One (presumably) cis hetero white men said that would have never occurred to him and he was glad he didn’t have to travel as a woman. He wasn’t discounting my experience, he just didn’t appreciate how much less thought and how much easier it is for him to travel alone.

16. And one other thing. Amanda banned me from the Pandagon for what really is a pretty minor offense. Like locking someone in prison for smoking pot, or something. I think there needs to be some sense of proportion here.

17. @ abra, #15:

    Honestly, I hated Scalzi’s piece. I do agree that there are Tons of cis het white guys who are blithely unaware of the enormous privileges they have — I just don’t think I’m one of them. (My life is shitty in many ways, but I DO have a shitload of unearned privilege. Thing is, I think I’m pretty much aware of my unearned privilege, or at least a large portion of it.)
    What I hated about Scalzi’s piece was the implicit distinction it drew between “earned” and “unearned” privilege. The problem with accepting this distinction is two-fold: First, it plays into the hands of the 1%, who say that their wealth is “earned”. Second, it creates discord within the diverse progressive community, with various factions fighting to prove that Their privileges are “earned” whereas Those Other people’s privileges are “unearned”. I mean, who’s to say and why should it matter?

18. @Abra,

    Except Sen’s bottom line was capability egalitarianism which suffers from the some of the same flaws. How do we measure endowments other than through our own fractured biases? And doesn’t the concept of endowments fail in an intersectional sense since most of us have both “talents” and “disabilities”. There has been some interesting critiques of Sen from feminist writers for many of the same reasons.

19. It’s all well and good to think about these things but when people choose hierarchy ( and many people do ) as a way of living, that forces everyone else to live that way too.
    Not having a clear definition of egalitarianism is not what’s getting in our way. The Rupert Murdocks and Dick Chaneys are the ones messing it all up.

20. I think a man ought to be allowed to trash talk, just like women are allowed to trash talk. One gender shouldn’t be expected to follow Marquis de Queensbery Rules while the other one can just let it rip. And also I think a little trash talk can be salutary, because it helps people be less guarded.

21. And one other thing. Amanda banned me from the Pandagon for what really is a pretty minor offense. Like locking someone in prison for smoking pot, or something. I think there needs to be some sense of proportion here.

    Okay, even though I am interested in comments actually related to the thread and hope you don’t successfully derail, this trolling is quite funny. 😀

22. What I hated about Scalzi’s piece was the implicit distinction it drew between “earned” and “unearned” privilege. The problem with accepting this distinction is two-fold: First, it plays into the hands of the 1%, who say that their wealth is “earned”. Second, it creates discord within the diverse progressive community, with various factions fighting to prove that Their privileges are “earned” whereas Those Other people’s privileges are “unearned”. I mean, who’s to say and why should it matter?

    1. The thing you’re missing here is that they don’t justly earn their wealth.

    2. Because earned privilege is merit-based unlike unearned privilege, which denies many people equality of opportunity.

23. @21umami: I think that me being banned from commenting on the Pandagon is unjust. Therefore, my expression of angst was germaine to the topic of this particular blog post.

24. 1. The thing you’re missing here is that they don’t justly earn their wealth.

    2. Because earned privilege is merit-based unlike unearned privilege, which denies many people equality of opportunity.

    1. By what criteria do you determine whether wealth has been “justly” earned?

    2. What is merit? If you are more intelligent do you have more merit? Do some people have more “merit” than others? If so, did they “earn” their merit?

25. @21 umami: Thanks for finding it funny.

26. What is merit? If you are more intelligent do you have more merit? Do some people have more “merit” than others? If so, did they “earn” their merit?

    Merit is a value that is earned through one’s own efforts. No one is inherently more meritorious than another.

27. Merit is a value that is earned through one’s own efforts. No one is inherently more meritorious than another.

    The problem is that “one’s own efforts” are entirely determined by genes and environment, over neither of which one has control. So to “earn” merit one must be lucky enough to be a more “meritorious” person.

28. @Miguel, come on. Unearned privilege is determined by your genes (whiteness, male) and environment (decent schools, subtle and not so ways many opportunities are constructed to favor white, cis, hetero males). Earned privilege is what you chose to do given the your starting place of unearned privilege. We all know at least stories of the spoiled rich kid who pisses his/her life away but still enjoys a high quality of life: Paris Hilton would be an extreme example, what has she done that would justified her status? Her life is the picture of unearned privilege.

    On the flip side, we all have heard shining examples of people who had far fewer unearned privileges who still managed to achieve a great deal despite their starting place being lower than others. Oprah, a woman of color who grew up in poverty, was raped as a child, pregnant at 14, etc. is ranked by some as the most influential woman in the world among other accolades. Yes, she was undoubtedly endowed with extraordinary talents (unearned privileges) but she chose to work very hard, and use and develop those talents (earn privileges). She could have just as easily chosen not to pursue certain opportunities, etc. (failing to earn privileges) or had one more strike against her that eliminated key opportunities (deficit in unearned privilege).

29. And one other thing. Amanda banned me from the Pandagon for what really is a pretty minor offense. Like locking someone in prison for smoking pot, or something. I think there needs to be some sense of proportion here.

    Like the sense of proportion clearly lacking in someone who compares being banned from a blog with being locked in prison?

    I don’t know if that sort of sense of proportion is needed anywhere.

30. @ abra: Here’s where I think your argument breaks down:

    Yes, she was undoubtedly endowed with extraordinary talents (unearned privileges) but she chose to work very hard, and use and develop those talents (earn privileges).

    The reason is that whether someone makes a choice depends on that person’s propensities, which are entirely determined by genes and environment. I don’t see how you can argue that an “extraordinary talent” is unearned, but “a propensity to work hard” is earned. There both the product of unchosen genes and an unchosen environment.

31. Like the sense of proportion clearly lacking in someone who compares being banned from a blog with being locked in prison?

    Hyperbole.

32. The reason is that whether someone makes a choice depends on that person’s propensities, which are entirely determined by genes and environment. I don’t see how you can argue that an “extraordinary talent” is unearned, but “a propensity to work hard” is earned. There both the product of unchosen genes and an unchosen environment.

    If you assume that all human actions are predetermined, then you have to throw morality itself out of the window, as morality is meaningless if free will doesn’t exist.

33. If you assume that all human actions are predetermined, then you have to throw morality itself out of the window, as morality is meaningless if free will doesn’t exist.

    Why would morality be meaningless? Consider this: Psychopathic behavior is still wrong just because it is determined by the psychopath’s genes and environment. Why should the “wrongness” of psychopathic behavior be contingent on the psychopath’s ability to “choose” to engage in it?

34. @Miguel, being familiar with mental illness from the treatment side, I can assure you that there are certain innate predispositions but people make choices about whether they are going to go with those predispositions or work to compensate or overcome them.

    If we are just vehicles for our predetermined dispositions, there would be no recovering alcoholics or drug addicts, it would be rare to see a black sheep of the family who underachieves relative to siblings, and you wouldn’t see an Oprah — if her genes and environment were such fertile soil, people who grew up poor and abused and who are of East African descent would rule the world.

35. Why would morality be meaningless?

    To illustrate why, here’s an example.

    Let’s say that, in a deterministic world, I tortured someone for fun. Now, people who find my action reprehensible may say something like “You should not have done that.” But since it is the case that, even if I should not have engaged in torture, I was destined to do so, my behavior cannot be judged with praise or blame in any meaningful sense.

    A deterministic world necessarily precludes the very notion of alternate choices that I could have made. In fact, on a related note, I’m inclined to believe that the assumption that determinism is true even renders all discourse meaningless.

36. @Mxe354:

    The question you raise is whether morality can “mean anything” if we cannot praise or blame to someone who engages in a morally relevant act.
    To speak to your example: On a practical level, if someone tortures others for fun I’m still very much in favor of locking that person in prison and condemning that person with strong language. So I’m not against praise or blame per se.
    There have been a few books written about the question of free will, and they’re on my reading list. I do think it’s possible to live without a belief in free will, but don’t think I’ll try to unpack the reason why right now.

37. A deterministic world necessarily precludes the very notion of alternate choices that I could have made. In fact, on a related note, I’m inclined to believe that the assumption that determinism is true even renders all discourse meaningless.

    yeah dis.

    i used to be well into determinism as u call it when i was a teenager. i.e. everythings just the interaction of biology and environment and we all have a preset biology and are born into a specific environment where we will be influenced by other people who all have a preset biology, etc, etc. therefore it’s all predetermined how all these things are going to interact and what we are going to do and theres no such thing as choice.

    IMO this is obviously true (unless you are religious and believe in souls or mind/body disconnect or whatever)… but it’s way to depressing to think that way, you know.

38. IMO this is obviously true (unless you are religious and believe in souls or mind/body disconnect or whatever)… but it’s way to depressing to think that way, you know.

    Well, I don’t think it needs to be depressing. I think it’s possible to be happy without believing in free will.

39. if someone tortures others for fun I’m still very much in favor of locking that person in prison and condemning that person with strong language.

    What could be achieved by doing that in a deterministic world?

40. Also, Miguel, there is a difference between advantages solely due to environmental and biological circumstances and privilege due to institutionalized bias against particular social groups. I think what most of us oppose is the latter because that’s what’s truly oppressive.

    1. @Mxe354, I wouldn’t say I disagree with you but I think that, in practice, disentangling systematic institutional advantages from environmental and biological advantages would be misleading. I live in a “transitioning” neighborhood, 75% non-white population, most families live at or near poverty level. I, however, am white, college educated, and our household income is above the US median.

       My children are likely healthier and probably will be over the entire course of their (longer) lives than most other children in the neighborhood because they have had better nutrition since conception, their illnesses are treated quickly and adequately, and we are better able to protect their respiratory systems when we have bad air quality days. They are better prepared to succeed in school because better prenatal and early childhood nutrition boosted their IQs and the enriched environment they are growing up in stimulates neural growth leading to better vocabulary and mathematical reasoning skills.

       So where do you draw the line between truly environmental and what is the byproduct or outcome of institutionalized advantages? Most if not all of those advantages that I listed are partially dependent on an inherited and unearned SES from which minorities have been systematically inhibited from achieving. And the gap between my children and those children (or me and their parents) is only likely to get larger as we anticipate being able to save and invest and they are caught in a system that penalizes them for being poor in part by giving them little option but to live in substandard environmental conditions.

       As far as biology (I read as genetics and this another artificial division from environmental factors): it is hard to factor this in without asserting the statistical fallacy of assigning individual biological characteristics to the socially constructed (racial/ethnic) groups and going down the slippery slope of making race biological with eugenics at its nadir.

41. What could be achieved by doing that in a deterministic world?

    Even in a deterministic world, there is a need to protect society from dangerous people. If it’s discovered that you’re the sort of person who goes around torturing people for fun, that’s a pretty good reason for the society you’re a part of to figure out some way of preventing you from hurting other people. I’m not sure that it’s the *best* way of dealing with the situation (particularly given how prisons *actually* function), but prison would certainly make it harder for you to torture people.

42. Even in a deterministic world, there is a need to protect society from dangerous people.

    All right. Now, let’s say that there is someone who can decide whether I go to prison or not for being dangerous to society. That person, for whatever reason, decides to let me roam about freely and continue to torture everyone I meet. What would you say to that person?

43. [T]here is a difference between advantages solely due to environmental and biological circumstances and privilege due to institutionalized bias against particular social groups. I think what most of us oppose is the latter because that’s what’s truly oppressive.

    What makes something “oppressive”?
    Why would an individual find the disadvantages she endures which are caused by environmental and biological circumstances to be “less oppressive” than the disadvantages she endures which are caused by some sort of institutional bias against her and her group? Why should only the latter be considered “oppressive”?

44. All right. Now, let’s say that there is someone who can decide whether I go to prison or not for being dangerous to society. That person, for whatever reason, decides to let me roam about freely and continue to torture everyone I meet. What would you say to that person?

    I have no idea. It would depend on too many factors that are completely unknown to me. Why do I believe the person is a danger? Did I witness an offense or did I just read about it in the paper? Do I know the person is a danger, or is it more “oh, that person is probably guilty”? Has the person threatened me or someone I know? Is it happening in my town or a thousand miles away?

    What do you say right now when someone you believe is guilty of horrible crimes is aquited? I would imagine that the offender would be pleased to have “gotten away with it” and that a person who believed the person a danger would be upset about it. The more directly the danger or offense to me and mine, the more upset I would imagine I’d be. I’m unhappy if any guilty person “gets away with it.” I’d obviously be substantially more concerned and upset if I believed that the person was out to get me or someone I know.

    I don’t see why the reactions in a deterministic world would be particular different than in a non-deterministic world.

45. What do you say right now when someone you believe is guilty of horrible crimes is acquited?

    I would say that the acquittal was a terrible idea. Why? Because it would be better if that person was locked up. But in a deterministic world, my statement is absurd because the acquittal was destined to happen anyway. Alternate choices and decisions don’t exist in a deterministic world.

    As some philosopher once said, “Ought implies can.” If we cannot even choose between actions, then how are we obligated to do anything moral?

46. I would say that the acquittal was a terrible idea. Why? Because it would be better if that person was locked up. But in a deterministic world, my statement is absurd because the acquittal was destined to happen anyway. Alternate choices and decisions don’t exist in a deterministic world.

    Depends on what you mean. Even in a deterministic world, you’d be capable of recognizing that the world would be better with Torture Guy locked up, yes?

    Say my wallet is stolen and I miss a flight as a result. If it turns out that it was stolen by a kleptomaniac who literally could not stop himself from stealing my wallet, does that mean that it’s absurd to think that it would have been better for me if he hadn’t stolen my wallet?

47. Even in a deterministic world, you’d be capable of recognizing that the world would be better with Torture Guy locked up, yes?

    Well, of course I could recognize that the world would be better if that person were locked up, but my recognition would be pointless; I would be wishing for something that could never happen in the first place – that is, an alternate event. I would be speaking nonsense if I said that it should have gone the other way – there was no other way.

    Say my wallet is stolen and I miss a flight as a result. If it turns out that it was stolen by a kleptomaniac who literally could not stop himself from stealing my wallet, does that mean that it’s absurd to think that it would have been better for me if he hadn’t stolen my wallet?

    The idea itself is not absurd, but your recognition is pointless because there was no other way things could have transpired.

48. Pingback: Link Love (04/08/2012) « Becky's Kaleidoscope

Comments are currently closed.