Who makes these systems? Is power and authority not a trait of the "winning faction" of any competitive environment? — Benj96

Our only hope is substantial and persistent political pressure. What else is there? How else would you ensure "constructive and healthy competition", given that the people in power have substantial political support?
The history of the 19th and early 20th century gives ground for hope.

Oh, please don't fall into the 'both are as bad as each other' fallacy. — Vera Mont

I'll tell you what - I'll promise not to fall into that fallcy if you'll promise not to fall into mine. OK?
Here's my side of the bargain.

But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. — Ludwig V

describes the present socio-political situation; I am not making a moral judgement.
The fallacy I'm asking you to avoid is the fallacy of stereotyping groups of people. Deal?
I think we agree that the present situation is seriously wrong. So, a question. Do you know what the right distribution of wealth across our society should be?

At the present level of disparity compromise is impossible; the "sides" far too unequal to negotiate. — Vera Mont

So what is your recommendation. Surely not civil war?

This is the bit the right wingers don't get: it's cheaper for society to assure everyone a reasonable life than to protect the wealth of a few. — Vera Mont

True.

Where the gap between the richest and poorest is an immense chasm, many are disenfranchised, marginalized and driven to despair. — Vera Mont

Tell me about it. It isn't an easy problem to shift the views of the rich and (therefore) powerful. It doesn't help that there is no objective criterion for what the right distribution would be. I think it comes down to a deal - not a formal deal, but a state of affairs that most people are prepared to acquiesce in. But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. I cling to hope because I remember Bismarck. That story tells you that you are just as likely to get a solution from a right-winger as from a left-winger.

Police forces in many countries are increasingly militarized, insulated and alienated from the community they're meant to protect; in many communities, the citizenry and the police are locked in a cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire. — Vera Mont

Oh, I know that. But if the difference was implemented, most of those problems would go away. Very few people actually want chaos or a "cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire". They want order without repression.

That's right. So the students majoring in unmarketable majors are subsidized by people who skipped school and went into the trades. — fishfry

H'm. In principle, that is a valid complaint. But, back when I was involved, something like 60% of vacancies for graduates (i.e. those requiring a BA degree or higher) did not specify the subject. That may have changed. But you might be surprised at where Eng. Lit. and Fine Arts graduates end up.
I'm not sure how education for professions and trades differs now; there's a lot of emphasis on training all the way up to BA level and higher. Many Universities are re-casting their non-vocational qualifications as vocational and there's effort going in to tracking what level of job graduates actually get. I've heard anecdotes that some vocational programmes don't do very well. It's complicated. I suspect that the identity of the awarding institution is more important than the subject. Whether it is question of reputation, prestige or snobbery depends on how polite I'm feeling.

It's just that the college grads vote for Democrats and the tradesmen vote for Republicans, so the Democratic administration forgives billions in student loans -- illegally, as the Supreme Court has already ruled -- in an election year. — fishfry

Oh, I wondered why that business about the student loans was happening now. Not pretty, but then, one has to please one's voters.

The Democratic party use to be the party of the tradesmen and no longer is. When did the left abandon the workers, and why? I gather the Labour party in the UK has undergone a similar transition, is that right? — fishfry

It has happened gradually over two or three decades. I hesitate to get too detailed. It's mainly about social liberalism/conservativism - abortion, gay rights &c. Curiously, the Conservative party now seems to be at least as socially liberal as the Labour party, if not more so. There is certainly an issue in the Labour party that the liberal metropolitan elite now vote for Labour and this often clashes with the conservative social values of many "working class" people (not a politically correct classification any more.)
Originally the Labour party was explicitly a party for the working class - it was founded by the Trade Union movement. The Conservative Party tended also to have foundations in the "higher" parts of the class system; but now it's more about economics - free market vs state intervention (not Socialism as such). It does seem that many people in what used to be the working class who might well have voted Labour in the past now vote Conservative. This is all not very reliable. I'm not an expert.

Compassion for criminals is anti-compassion for their victims. — fishfry

I don't see why it has to be. Except, of course, that a victim may be more vengeful than the system is. But I don't see that as a question of compassion or not. Support for victims (in the UK at least) has been pathetic, but is now improving (but not nearly perfect).

I think the first duty of civic authorities is to provide for civic order. — fishfry

Of course that's true. Part of the argument is that sympathetic ("humane") treatment of criminals and addicts gets better results in preventing recidivism - and a huge proportion of crime is recidivism. There's empirical evidence for that.
Another part is that more severe sentences are not effective in preventing crime. Effective detection and police work is much more effective. It makes sense. 20 years in jail is not much of a deterrent if you aren't going to get caught. But if you know you won't get away with, you know also that you won't benefit much, whatever the penalty. (Some crimes are not deterred even by the high likelihood of getting caught, but those are unlikely to be deterred by severe penalties.) I know, I know, justice demands.... That, in my book, is not about justice; it is about revenge. Prevention is more important than revenge.

The page itself isn't all that enlightening, but it does at least show that the ordinal numbers really are a thing in math, I'm not just making it all up. — fishfry

Yes. I got enough from it to realize a) that ω is one of a class of numbers and b) that it comes after the natural numbers (so doesn't pretend to be generated by "+1")

This business about actions is what confuses people. — fishfry

Certainly. That's what needs to be clarified, at least in my book. There's a temptation to think that actions must, so to speak, occur in the real world, or at least in time. But that's not true of mathematical and logical operations. Even more complicated, I realized that we continually use spatial and temporal terms as metaphors or at least in extended senses:-

By the way, ω is the "point at infinity" after the natural numbers — fishfry

What does "after" mean here?

If you want to think about the sequence 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, ... "never ending," that's fine. Yet we can still toss the entire sequence into a set, and then we can toss in the number 1. That's how sets work — fishfry

Yes, but it seems to me that this is not literally true, because numbers aren't objects and a set isn't a basket. (I'm not looking for some sort of reductionist verificationism or empiricism here.)

Just think about {1/2, 3/4, 7/8, ..., 1}. It's the exact same set, with respect to what we care about, namely the property of being an infinite sequence followed by one extra term that occurs after the sequence. — fishfry

In that respect, yes. But I can't help thinking about the ways in which they are different.

That's a confusing way to think about it. It "ends" in the sense that we can conceptualize all of the natural numbers, along with one extra thing after the natural numbers. — fishfry

Yes. But it doesn't end in the sense that we can't count from any given natural number up to the end of the sequence.

And two, calculus classes are not designed to teach people how to think about limits in the more general ways that mathematicians sometimes do. — fishfry

I try not to mention this in public, but the fact is that I never took a calculus class, nor was I ever taught to think about limits or infinity in the ways that mathematicians sometimes do. I did a little formal loic in my first year undergraduate programme. Perhaps that's an advantage.

And as I keep explaining, the issue with supertasks has nothing to do with mathematics. Using mathematics to try to prove that supertasks are possible is a fallacy. — Michael

Fair enough. That coincides with my intuition that supertasks are not possible. But given that they are not physically possible either, can I conclude that they are not possible at all?

Put those together with quasi-physical entities like physics-defying lamps, and you have a recipe for confusion. — fishfry

I have the impression that you don't think that they are mathematically possible either. (I admit I may be confused.) So does that mean you don't think that supertasks are possible?

Health care policy's hard, I agree. I've only heard anecdotal evidence about NHS. — fishfry

Well, be careful. Most anecdotes have an agenda behind them - not that statistics don't. You wouldn't believe the impression I get from the anecdotes I hear about the US "system". I just don't believe that it can be as bad as that.

Government doesn't have any money that it doesn't take from someone else. Or borrow and print, that's a nice game that has to end at some point too. — fishfry

The issue behind the student loan question is the question how far state-funded free education should go. If you want a level playing field in careers, everyone who can benefit should get higher education - and that means that almost everybody should be entitled to have a go. At the same time, if people benefit financially, there is a good case for saying that some of that benefit should go back to whoever funded it. Ironically, in the UK, the financial benefit from higher education is rapidly shrinking and, some say, has disappeared, mainly because it has been extended so widely. The proportion of student loans that is actually repaid is astonishingly low. (I can't remember the actual figures.)

Nobody has any money they don't take from someone else. We all give something in exchange. But even Government has to provide something in exchange. Sure taxes are compulsory, but is food and housing voluntary? They are certainly not classified as discretionary spending by economists.

Electronic money seems to be on the way, and that is going to making the arbitrary printing of money look like a tea party, if the existing private systems are anything to go by.

Perhaps it's a matter of pendulum swinging and patience. — fishfry

Yes, it probably is. That's one of the few things that my mother told me that I have found to be true.

I agree. We need a balance between trying to homogenize society, and old-fashioned notions of merit. — fishfry

II would prioritize effectiveness in the job (in the widest sense) above everything else. If that's what you mean by merit, then I agree.

I can't think of any totally unregulated capitalist systems. — Janus

Well, yes. A market can only exist in a legal framework, which is a form of regulation. I'm only referring, n short-hand to the movement at the end of the 19th century to palliate (welfare) or control (additional regulation) some of the anti-social consequences of capitalism.

On the other hand, communist systems, insofar as they are anti-democratic (which most seem to be and to have been) exercise far more control over their citizens. — Janus

Far more overt control, yes. Capitalism is subtler. I prefer the second, of course.

In the modern world it is money which effectively rules, and governments are, to a large extent, bought. The CCP on the other hand controls the money because it effectively owns the business it seems. — Janus

So either the people who control the money or the people who are members of the CCP are in charge. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting choice. Who looks after your interests and mine?

A badly organized society creates many malcontents and disrupters; a well organized one tends to give rise to very little crime and abuse. — Vera Mont

H'm - tempting
Dictatorships are quite good at creating an organized society, but at a high cost. Democracies (and free markets) seem to be chaotic, but the social costs are lower.
The critical factor is the extent to which the organization has consent, and has enough flexibility to give space to minority and unpopular interests.
The difference between a police force and an army is that the police must have the consent of those being policed and must be an integral part of the community, while an army needs neither.

It makes no sense to claim that my endless recitation can end, or that when it does end it doesn't end on one of the items being recited – let alone that it can end in finite time. — Michael

The natural numbers do not end, yet they have a successor in the ordinal numbers, namely ω. This is an established mathematical fact. — fishfry

I've watched this debate for a long time - though I don't claim to have understood all of it. But I think those two quotes show that you are talking past each other.

I didn't like ω at all, when it was first mentioned. I'm still nowhere near understanding it. But the question whether a mathematical symbol like ω is real and a number is simply whether it can be used in calculations. That's why we now accept that 1 and 0 are numbers and calculus and non-Euclidean geometries. ω can be used in calculations. So that's that. See the Wikipedia article on this for more details.

But it is also perfectly true that a recitation of the natural numbers cannot end. As I said earlier, it is remarkable that we can prove it. Yet we cannot distinguish between a sequence of actions that has not yet ended from one that is endless by following the steps of the sequence. So we are already in strange territory.

In the way I'm describing this, you may think that the difference is between the abstract world (domain) of mathematics and another world, which might be called physical, though I don't think that is right. I'm very puzzled about what is going on here, but I'm pretty sure that it is more about how one thinks about the world than any multiverse.

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. Under most communist regimes, people simply get what they are given by the powers that be. — Janus

Interesting. Under capitalism, you think that people get things from an entirely passive system, and under communism, the system dishes things out to people who are entirely passive. That's far too simple. The systems are far more alike than you seem to think. Under communism, people manipulated the system as much as they could to get what they wanted, and under capitalism, the system exercises its power as much as it can. Though it is true that each system does to present itself in the way you outline.

You may be thinking that I'm saying that the two are as bad as each other. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not a black and white issue. I would not choose to live under a communist system as we knew them. But I would not choose to live under a pure capitalist system, as in the 19th century, either. We live under a modified capitalist system and that seems to me a reasonable way to go - at least, I don't know of a better. But that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

By the way, you recognize that any welfare system modifies capitalism and that is true, and those systems are very important in making it possible for many more people to live in a more civilized way than pure capitalism can. But the various regulatory systems that West has introduced are also critically important to making capitalism liveable.

I would think that many people interested in politics do follow New York City politics. But if you don't, that's cool. Not sure you are qualified to comment on the social justice approach to crime, though. It's failing in New York City in a very obvious way. — fishfry

So is it possible that a different version of the social justice approach might be more effective? Is it possible that other places may be implementing it in a better way?

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what. — Vera Mont

The trick is, to find something that is objective, or at least rational, or at least acceptable to those who are rejected. As things are, the first two are achieved to some extent, but the last is often suspected of being primarily acceptable only to those in power. Hence all the business with equality of outcomes.

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities. — Janus

Good question. The short answer is, public discussion followed by a political deal - not because it is right, but because it is practical. A consensus would be a good basis, but one would probably have to settle for a majority view that is acquiesced in by those who don't agree. But I think with reasonable good will, one could make an initial deal and go from there.

Everybody needs food, shelter and security. But when you get down to details, it gets difficult. One question is what level of needs is appropriate - the level of bare survival or the level required to function as a member of society. Is health care part of the package or not?
Level of ability is not too hard, but very difficult if you are trying to assess what level someone is capable of achieving, rather than what level they are at. Enthusiasm or commitment is, in practice, part of the package as well.

I did say that. Everything but money - because joy also has a dollar value. Just watch the ads if you don't believe me. — Vera Mont

Sorry, I didn't think I was contradicting you. Just expressing the point differently.

We cannot describe the tortoise's position as a simple limit to Achilles' position, because the tortoise is already moving at a constant velocity, and no matter how fast Achilles accelerates he cannot catch up to the tortoise. This is the problem of acceleration, which demonstrates the fundamental incompatibility between distinct rest frames. Einstein attempted to bridge this incompatibility by stipulating the speed of light as the limit, (therefore absolute rest frame) in his special theory of relativity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do agree with you that people seem not to understand the meaning of limit in this context. Many of them seem to think that calculus solves the problem, though it clearly doesn't.
As to special relativity, I'm not going to argue with you. Most people neglect acceleration, on the grounds that including it won't make any material difference. Does Einstein's theory tell us when Achilles will overtake the tortoise? I thought that both started at the same time, and therefore in the same rest frame. When Achilles overtakes the tortoise, won't they both be in the same rest frame?
Neglecting acceleration, let's say Achilles gives the tortoise a head start of 100 units of length and that Achilles runs at 11 units per second and the tortoise at 1 unit per second. So, at time t seconds after the tortoise is at 100 units from the start, the tortoise will be at 100 + t units from the start, and Achilles at 11t units. These will be the same - 110 units - at time t = 10 seconds.

There are similar paradoxes that don't involve two moving elements:-

Suppose Atalanta wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before she can get there, she must get halfway there. Before she can get halfway there, she must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, she must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on. — Wikipedia

It's not. Modern Olympic games are business. Huge government contracts to build new arenas, huge financial losses for the public sector - but, hey, some jillionnaire will buy the arena cheap, plaster his name all over it and charge exorbitant ticket prices to the people who paid for the building of it. As for the athletes, if they survive with body and mind intact, their best hope is to sell their name to a corporation. — Vera Mont

I'm so sorry. There's a small typo in what I said. It should have read:-

That (i.e., the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be surprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. — Ludwig V

Though you are also quite right to observe that there are also financial opportunities in creating and running the opportunities to acquire acclaim and success. Not to mention in training and looking after the competitors.

In a society that monetizes everything, and sucks the joy out of everything but money, yes. — Vera Mont

There's a valid complaint here, because our society does tend to suck the joy out of everything. But I'm not sure it is money that is the problem. The thing is, money represents resources. It isn't possible to set up or compete in sport without any resources. Ditto art and pure science. Or raising a family.
It would be better to say that the tendency to measure the value of everything by reference to money that sucks the joy out of everything, because that measure misses the point. Money isn't worth anything for in its own right. Its value is what you can buy or do with it.

Games and sports don't always carry 'lucrative' prizes. The winner used to be content with the acclaim of his peers, a reputation for accomplishment in some specialized area, perhaps increased social status.
Material rewards turn games into business, to the detriment of both the players and the standard of fair play. — Vera Mont

The complication is that the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. That was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be suprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. I don't think one can draw a clear line.

A healthy society can have universal healthcare and universal income so long as we are happy consuming healthy competitions so we don't create unhealthy ones out of a desperate need for purpose and flexing our competitive prowess. — Benj96

That sounds good. Not easy, though. There are always free riders and malcontents.

We must subvert our tendency to compete so that we do not do so in a directly oppressive manner to society and human rights. — Benj96

There is always a problem about excessive competition. There are usually systems in place to control it and they are at least reasonably successful.

As Margaret Thatcher once noted, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." — fishfry

The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that she thought that a dumb quip is a substitute for serious thinking. But then, she was a politician. She also believed that there is no such thing as society.

when I say that a lot of people these days are advocating for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity — fishfry

I agree that equality of outcome is not a reliable index of equality of opportunity and that people often talk, lazily, as if they were. But if equality of opportunity does not result in changes to outcomes, then it is meaningless. The only question is, how much change is it reasonable to expect? If 50% of the population is female and only eight of UK's top 100 companies are headed by women (Guardian Oct. 2021), don't you think it is reasonable to ask why? I agree that it doesn't follow that unfair discrimination is at work, but it must be at least a possibility. No?

Many issues with long wait times at NIH in Great Britain. — fishfry

There are always issues with the NHS in the UK. But that's not about universal health care or not. It's about what can be afforded, what priority it has. Difficult decisions, indeed, but anyone with sense knows they must be made. That's why we have the national institute of clinical excellence. It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to make rational decisions; other systems do not even attempt to do that.
Of course, when my life, or my child's life, is at stake, I will put the system under as much pressure as I can to try everything. And to repeat, it's not about charity or robbing the rich. It's about insurance.

Given that ad infinitum means "without end" — Michael

Yes, it does. But there is a small but significant mistranslation there. I have no problem with saying that "infinite" means "endless", but "ad" does not mean "without". It means "to".
So there are two different ways of thinking about infinity embedded here. One thinks of infinity as a destination, which, paradoxically, cannot, by definition, be reached. The other doesn't, but rather denies that there is a destination. At first sight, one wants to say that the second is correct.
But how do we know that the operation "+1" generates a sequence without end? In one way, it doesn't seem absurd to think that it might be done. After all, given that "+1" can be defined, the result of every step is determined (fixed) - the whole sequence is always already there, for us to inspect. But that seems a mistake; we can't survey the whole sequence and notice that there is no end.
Well, there is the proof that there can be no largest (natural) number. We can prove lots of other things, as well. We don't have to survey the whole sequence to do any of that. It really is magical, and yet inescapably logical. (Poetry? Perhaps. But this is about how we think about things, so it is also philosophy.)

So it seems that we are locked into two incompatible ways of thinking about infinity. One as if it were a sequence which stretches away for ever. The other as a succession of operations which can be continued for ever. (Two metaphors - one of space, one of time.) I'm not suggesting it needs to be resolved, just that we are subject to confusion and need to think carefully, but also recognize that our normal ways of thinking here will need to be adapted and changed.

Well I can walk a mile, and I first walked the first half mile, and so forth, so it's a matter of everyday observation that supertasks exist. That would be an argument for supertasks. Zeno really is a puzzler. I don't think the riddle's really been solved. — fishfry

Quite so. That's why these puzzles are not simply mathematical and why I can't just walk away from them.

The process carries on, unlimited, despite the fact that the mathematician can determine that lowest total amount of time which it is impossible for the process to surpass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, quite so. But it follows that applying the calculus to Achilles doesn't demonstrate that Achilles will overtake the tortoise. I think that only ordinary arithmetic can do that.

Then rather than recite the natural numbers I recite the digits 0 - 9 on repeat ad infinitum.
It makes no sense to claim that I can finish repeating the digits ad infinitum, or that when I do I don't finish on one of those digits.
This is an issue of logic and nothing to do with what is physically possible. — Michael

Does it make any sense to claim that you can repeat the digits ad infinitum? All you can do is repeat the digits again and perhaps promise or resolve to repeat them again after that.

The truths of mathematics and logic are timelessly true, aren't they? There is no change in that world. We frame them in the present tense, but it is, grammatically speaking, the timeless present, not the present that is preceded by the past and followed by the future. We speak of logical operations, but what does that mean? Their results are always already fixed - determinate. So when we carry them out - nothing in logic changes.

Thanks for that snippet.

I wish we could know what lies behind it.

I am content being just and moral, and yes, helping those who I think need and want help. — NOS4A2

I seem to have misjudged you. I should not have presented you with a completely inappropriate argument. I can only respect your position. There are some questions, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this thread.
I'll give you this. It is simply wasteful to try to help people who won't co-operate. All one can do is to minimize harm, so far as that is possible. That's hard to accept, but needs to be recognized.

Not by much. — fishfry

Well, I do agree that there have been a good few incidents that are outrageous, completely inappropriate and arguably counter-productive.

Right wing order-apology or fear-side thinking conflates inequality of function with inequality of intrinsic worthiness. They are wrong to do so. We all are intrinsically equally worthy, and what we do, our function, DOES NOT morally change that value.

Left wing chaos-apology or desire-side thinking conflates equality of intrinsic worthiness with equality of function. They are wrong to do so. We are all capable of only doing differing things well, despite the truth of intrinsic worthiness. So, it's NOT true at all that just anyone can do anything well, like .,.. vote. — Chet Hawkins

Yes, that's a good analysis, though I would have put it rather differently. I hope there are people who are not locked into one or other position, because any resolution must work out what intrinsic worthiness means in practice and how enable each person to play to their respective strengths and/or pursue their various ambitions and desires without oppressing anyone else. However, I also think that basic needs, which we all have in common, (food, shelter, security) are in a different category, just because they are common to everyone.

So, ALL, yes ALL efforts towards equality of outcomes are doomed as ridiculous on the surface of the idea. — Chet Hawkins

I quite agree. But I do think that inequality of outcomes can be a symptom of unjustified discrimination.

However, I was thinking, and I am assuming this here, most of us do not have excess wealth to give away to those who may be in need of help. So it's simply a matter of supply and demand. We don't have the supply to meet their demand. — Rob J Kennedy

I'm sure that is so and certainly it is true of me. But I'm not sure I could look a homeless person in the face and tell them that, and I suspect that most of us would find that difficult.
Whether it is true, is another question. How far it is reasonable to expect people to contribute to charitable causes is yet another. Whether it is reasonable to require people to insure against certain events or provide for them if they are inevitable is yet another. It's incredibly complicated.

We don't have the supply to meet their demand. — Rob J Kennedy

As individuals, certainly not. But when there is enough food to feed everyone and some people are starving to death, it is not a problem of supply and demand, but a question of distribution and that's a complicated problem. Or, to put it the other way round, in times of famine, the rules change and sharing becomes the only moral option - and people seem to accept that, on the whole.

Based upon the majority of replies to this tread, Rawls is right. We have proved his statement to be correct. It seems most are in favour of not redistributing wealth so others can have the basic goods to the extent that others have them. Or am I wrong? — Rob J Kennedy

I'm not sure there is a consensus view here. Is Rawls is putting a proposal to his council (when we're all pretending not to know who we shall be), or simply assuming that we are all already in an equal situation (which, actually, is the situation we are in on this forum). In either case, in such situations, it would be irrational to concede an advantage to others at a cost to myself. Either way, that is quite different from the actual (unequal, or at least varied) situation in our wider society, and I think we have all been talking about that. In a way, that's a problem. But I don't think that the proposal is particularly interesting, so I don't mind much. The debate is interesting and I've learnt from it.

Equality is about power distribution. — frank

There's truth in that.

Welfare is simply the means through which people can absolve themselves of their responsibility to members of their own community, and worse, to delegate that responsibility to a some cold bureaucracy. — NOS4A2

There is a problem around that. But welfare is more than that. "Simply" misses the point.

Charity at least involves some sacrifice and effort. — NOS4A2

... and earing the money to pay the taxes for welfare programmes doesn't involve time and effort? Charity cannot offer more than special treatment for some people - and does not necessarily benefit the most deserving cases. Welfare achieves better results, because everyone has the same rights.

If you mean that some people are demanding compensation for long-entrenched inequities, I don't deny it. Some tipping of the imbalance might be appropriate. — Vera Mont

More or less my opinion. If people can claim compensation for what happened before the birth of anyone now living, where does it stop? Can they really return everything that has been looted even in just the last hundred years? Wikipedia - Supreme Court and Affirmative Action Case gave me pause for thought.

It would be effective to kill them, but effectiveness can often be immoral and unjust. So utility is not any kind of goal for me. — NOS4A2

I very much agree with the first sentence.

So you are content to sit on the side-lines watching what goes on, paying your share of the price for letting it all happen and telling those people how undeserving they are - and, no doubt, generously helping those you consider deserving.

I confess that I get increasingly annoyed at the widespread acceptance of the view that welfare is somehow equivalent to charity. It isn't. It is enlightened self-interest. See Wikipedia - Enlightened self-interest (But I don't think, as Wikipedia seems to think, that this is a complete ethical theory.)

What is at issue is the education of the guardians. — Fooloso4

Why doesn't he worry about the education of everyone else?

They must believe that the good of the city is their own good if they are to protect it even if they die doing so. — Fooloso4

The best way - and the only safe way - to get them to believe that the good of the ciry is their own good is to ensure that the good of the city really is for their own good.

It there reason for believing is not true that is an indication that a lie is needed. — Fooloso4

No. It is an indication that reform of the city is needed. The lie just hides the problem.

A mercenary will only fight if it benefits them. — Fooloso4

That makes them no different from the guardians.

Personally, I wouldn’t put anyone in jail. But I certainly wouldn’t reward their behavior and subsidize their lifestyle by sacrificing my own and other’s. — NOS4A2

You are already paying a price by not preventing them from continuing in their life of crime. Passing laws, buying alarms and locks, and funding the police hasn't worked. Try investing in something else, more effective.

Your feelings and interests sound nice, sure, but I’m curious about your actions, specifically what you are willing to sacrifice and if you would sacrifice for both of them equally. — NOS4A2

The same argument applies.

There are people who deserve prospects and those who do not. Someone who has become impoverished through no fault of his own, for instance, deserves his community’s help, while the one who has impoverished himself and his community through crime and malfeasance does not. — NOS4A2

OK. I doubt I would sympathize with the criminals. It depends how they got in to crime. You would sling them in jail for a long time - at your own cost, not theirs. When they come out, without any prospects or help, what do you think he will do? He needs food and shelter and he craves social connection. As we all do. What will he do?

There are those who find themselves on hard times because of illness or tragedy, and those who find themselves on hard times because they prefer getting high as soon as they wake up. Will you sacrifice your opportunities for both of them equally? — NOS4A2

Yes. I would even sympathize with both. In any case, it is in my interest to get him off his addiction.

It's not faith. I don't care if they were good or bad people, just so they contributed to the body of knowledge and literature, just as I think we should name hospitals after health scientists and airfields after aviators. It just seems appropriate to name things according their function. — Vera Mont

OK. That makes sense.

Let us name our schools for educators, our parks for the place they occupy and our libraries for literary figures, just as priests name churches for their saints. — Vera Mont

You have more faith in educators and literary figures than I do. But it would be best if we could accept that most people - even educators and literary figures - may turn out to be a mixture of good and bad, admirable and despicable.

It depends on how the race is framed. It CAN be described as a supertask, wherein Achilles runs to a series of destinations, each established by where the tortoise is located when he begins each leg of the race. In that case, Achilles never actually reaches the turtle, he just gets increasingly closer. If you frame it in terms of constant speeds by both, then it's not a supertask - it's a different kind of puzzle. — Relativist

I'm not sure it is even a puzzle if it is framed in terms of constant speeds by both. Let's say Achilles gives the tortoise a head start of 100 units of length, that Achilles runs at 11 units per second and the tortoise at 1 unit per second. So, at time t seconds after the tortoise is at 100 units from the start, the tortoise will be at 100 + t units from the start, and Achilles at 11t units. These will be the same - 110 units - at time t = 10 seconds. (This was suggested to me by a friend.) It seems OK to me, but perhaps I'm wrong to think that it will generalize.
But I don't really want to pursue it. I just wanted to point out that a puzzle can be the result of framing the question in the "wrong" way. Everyone seems intent on resolving the staircase problem on its own terms, which seems to me a mistake.

The truth may be that about certain things at certain times sometimes it is better to lie. — Fooloso4

Well, I don't subscribe to Kant's view. I guess it depends on circumstances, with a bias towards telling the truth.

The truth is, all societies have their stories, their myths, their lies. — Fooloso4

"Myth" is complicated. For me, a myth is a story that has acquired so much significance that it no longer matters much whether it is true or false. Yes, every society has those.

Do you mean another part that does not? In that case you both want to do it and not do it. Isn't that a conflict? — Fooloso4

Yes, it is. The idea of separate parts is a way of dissociating and avoiding it. But what is needed is a resolution of the conflict or at least a way of living with it.

In line with the question of noble lies consider allegiance to the fatherland and/or mother earth. Patriots consider their state or country or homeland as more than just an institution. — Fooloso4

Ah, yes, so they do. But it too often means very undesirable things, such as thinking that behaviour that would be immoral between individuals is ok between cities. Or thinking that criticism of one's city is always to be rejected. It isn't necessarily a good thing.

People come to believe that the good of the city is their own good. — Fooloso4

But is it? Anyway, their reason for believing that is not true - i.e. a bad reason.

What I mean by equality of outcome is a reasonable life: satisfying work, physical safety, access to good nutrition, shelter and health care, freedom of movement and personal autonomy.
Why not simply give every citizen the chance to achieve their own ambition and fulfill their own potential, and respect each for his or her contribution? — Vera Mont

That strikes me as simple common sense.

That's because some Westerners still think slavery was a good idea and defending it was heroic. — Vera Mont

I've never met anyone who actually said that. Still, one never knows... But I have encountered people who offer excuses, usually as a way of avoiding responsibility. On the other hand, I gather there are some places in the world that still practice it, though perhaps under another description.

Personally, I'm all for public art, but totally opposed to monuments. Today's hero is almost certain to be tomorrow's villain. — Vera Mont

It would be better if we could recognize people as both. Very few are simply one or the other.

Some people in the public square these days would burn you at the stake for arguing for equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. And for exactly the reason you mention, that outcomes are highly influenced by the random social circumstances of one's beginnings. — fishfry

I hope you exaggerate.
I agree that insisting on equality of outcomes is more complicated than is usually acknowledged. Where outcomes are influenced by random factors, differences do fall into the category of the unfairness of life. But where they are systematic and not random, they are a problem. So inequality of outcome can be an indicator or symptom of a systematic problem.
There is another problem, which is distinguishing between issues that can be fixed, and those that can't.

A whole lot of quite nasty people have had their statues erected in public squares, at public expense. I guess the public has a right to reject them. There are places elsewhere for the images of great men out of favour special parks for the no-longer-wanted statues. — Vera Mont

Yes, the case of Eastern Europe is instructive. They seem to be developing a sensible approach. They had the advantage of a widespread consensus about what should be done. Clearly, that doesn't hold in the West, and, to be fair, it isn't the same situation.

That's the problem with "equality." If you have a system that allows everyone to thrive at their own level of ability and ambition, you'll get lots of great art, science, and wealth. Lots of excellence among the excellent. You'll also get lots of inequality. And if you hammer down every nail that stands up, you'll get all the equality you want ... good and hard. — fishfry

Your system (or lack of it) sounds great. But you can't justify it just by appealing to the high achievers. An ethical system needs to recognize and have space for the majority - the mediocre. It also needs to ensure that high achievement is at least possible for everybody and that the achievements benefit everybody.
Hammering people for any reason is not something that I could approve of, whatever the reason.

In our current bureaucratic trajectory, though, we do not differentiate between the deserving or undeserving, and do so according to more trivial factors such as class or tax-bracket. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure what you mean about not differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving. Freedom from inappropriate discrimination should not be restricted to the deserving, whoever they may be. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not to be handed out to only to those who deserve them.

I think it's because they are interesting puzzles, and because they help teach certain concepts. — Relativist

I think they are interesting because they dangle the prospect of completing a task and persuade us to ignore the reality of the impossibility of the task.
It is rather like a lottery. A lottery ticket is sold by dangling the prospect of a big win without any noticeable effort; some people focus on that and ignore the probabilities. The way the proposition is presented makes a difference to the view that people tend to adopt.

Why is the passing of a tortoise necessarily not a supertask, as described by Zeno, and given a presumption of continuous physics? — noAxioms

The allure of supertasks is the illusion of being able to complete an infinite process in a finite amount of time. I'm not sure there's anything comparable. — Relativist

Maybe I've misunderstood what a supertask is. Are there not different kinds of cases?
In the case of Achilles, we know that the task can be completed, but it is presented to us in a form in which it cannot be completed. I mean that we know that Achilles will pass the tortoise and even calculate when with simple arithmetic (no infinities required). But then the same problem, presented in a different way, seems to suggest that it cannot. So it's a question of how you choose to present the problem.
The staircase is different. It gives us a task (going down the infinite stairs) that cannot be completed, but links completion of the task to another process which also cannot be completed, but has a limit.

My point is that the stairs are countably infinite. Consequently, they COULD be counted, if we were traversing them. — Relativist

Am I right to think that you are not saying that all the stairs can be counted, even though any stair could be included in a counting sequence?

I'll add that supertask scenarios actually are NOT coherent- because they entail a contradiction. — Relativist

That's true. What puzzles me is why they are not dismissed out of hand. Someone earlier described them as fairy stories, and the writers seem to be able to wave a hand and create impossibilities, which would be magic, so that description makes sense. But it seems to me more like an illusion and the problem is then to understand how that illusion works.

Supertasks describe a conceptual mapping of the abstract mathematical series into the actual, kinematic world — Relativist

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that descriptions of the supertasks are the source of the illusion that there could be a mapping of that mathematical series into the actual kinematic world?
More than that, surely, there can be a mapping of some mathematical series into the actual kinematic world. Perhaps some similarity between those series is what creates the illusion?

The counter, with it's supertask has one way of counting out time, by dividing seconds into shorter and shorter increments, while the stopwatch is designed to measure an endless procession of seconds. The two are incompatible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. How come anyone can't see that? Since the difference is the difference between simple addition and division followed by addition, I think it is then possible to see how people can be misled into thinking they are compatible - even that they must be compatible.

The dialogues are not doctrines surrounded by window dressing. The dramatic setting and action are important, not to be ignored or abstracted from when Plato is discussed in terms of theories and doctrines. — Fooloso4

I'm all in favour of that. I was delighted when that approach began, though I have lost touch somewhat with how it has developed. It was a relief to be relieved of the chronology question. It was never clear enough to be helpful and the arguments for it were always suspiciously circular.

If I understand you correctly the point is that there is no clear divisions. I agree with that, but I think Plato points to that problem rather than maintaining the divisions. A world of Forms is not the world we live in. A world populated by people who are either rational or spirited or appetitive is not the world we live in. Our world is, as Socrates says, messy, things are mixed and blended. — Fooloso4

Well, that goes at least part of the way towards what I'm hammering at.

If noble lie is accepted as the correct translation then the issue is whether and why such a lie is needed. — Fooloso4

No, it's not that simple. We have to re-calibrate our view of Plato's view of the value of truth. You might say it is a welcome element of pragmatism, but that implies quite a change.

I do not see it as "the theory of forms" but as the problem of knowledge of justice, or, rather our lack of such knowledge. Unless what justice is is something known then we are in the realm of opinion. This is our natural starting point. The task then is to try and determine what seems to be the best opinion when it comes to matters of justice and the just life. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure I quite understand that. I think that the criteria for a just society will not be the same as the criteria for a just person. I think that the analogy between society and people is tempting, but radically misleading - just as the analogy of the ship of state is tempting but misleading.

But we are often at odds with ourselves. If I want to be healthy I should not sit on the couch eating cake. I might claim that I am free to do this or not do it, and even though there is a part of me that does not want to do it, I may end sitting on the couch eating cake anyway. — Fooloso4

Tell me about it. But if there is a part of me that wants to do it, and another part that does, I am not in conflict with myself, and the problem is misrepresented. Although the temptation to describe the unwanted behaviour as not really me is almost irresistible.

There are things we owe to the city. — Fooloso4

Sure. But the city as an institution has neither heart nor soul of its own; it is what it is because of the people who live in and by it. People are an end in themselves; the city is not, nor is any other social institution.

As individuals? What stands as the good of the people? What I might regard as good for me might not be what you regard as good for you. — Fooloso4

What stands as the good of the people is a difficult question. I have another - what good is a good of the people that benefits no-one? Can anything that benefits only some of the people count as the good of the people?
It can be better for one of us to die - even unwillingly - if it saves many other lives. But that's not the real problem. The puzzle is why people will sometimes put the good of the city above their own or anyone else's good.
What I admit is a difficult problem that people often identify with an institution, so that they feel that they have benefited if the institution benefits. It's not exactly selfish, but it's not exactly altruistic either. Yet it seems to be an inescapable part of living in a society. The idea that we can have a neat division between individual rights and obligations and the rights and obligations of an institution is quite wrong, because we are inherently social creatures. Plato's argument - and I think the standard argument in ancient Greece - was that we cannot be self-sufficient, but it is more than that.

Right now, we're suffering an eardrum shattering scream from the advocates of mega-wealth at the prospect of 1% rise in taxes on their billion-dollar profits. Nobody likes to give up what they have, no matter how unfairly they got it. — Vera Mont

Yes. It is hard to put right an inequity that has become established but perhaps even harder to prevent one getting established in the first place.

As to the principle, John Rawls had the right idea: design a society that you would be happy to live in. The catch is, when you design it, you don't know where you will fit, what your circumstances will be in that society. — Vera Mont

Yes. If only we had the opportunity to start from scratch with people who did not differ in their negotiation skills.

I would not because it is immoral; such an arraignment is premised on the exploitation of those who accept the principles. The arraignment is also unjust insofar as it does not consider those who are deserving or undeserving of the prospects and opportunities you mention. — NOS4A2

That's all very well. But what if the privileges are themselves the result of exploitation? Or what if the privileges are used to exploit people? Then, right-minded people at least would accept. It does happen, surprisingly often. I think the point is that everyone deserves prospects and opportunities.

Social organization is an on-going negotiation among interested factions. — Vera Mont

Yes. Enabling that process to satisfy all parties is the really important and difficult bit.

Which of the specific kinds of social equality I mentioned is unfair? — Vera Mont

Did I suggest that any of them was? If so, I apologize. Perhaps I was a bit lazy in not giving a list. I hesitated because I'm not sure your list is complete.

these exemptions come with criteria and limitations that can be agreed on by consensus, rather than decreed by a ruler. — Vera Mont

Yes. One has to be careful here. What if people who are excluded protest that they should be included? (Slaves, women, children). There's a particularly awkward question about exclusion of those who are or might be regarded as incompetent, such as very young children.

There is no free market and there never has been. — Vera Mont

I agree. Adam Smith's model was never really more than that - a model. At the very least, a market needs a legal and social structure with power to settle disputes and enforce the rules.

I feared we might end up with a discussion that is more than I can handle right now. I would have to re-read the Republic first in any case. Some comments:-

In case anyone too quickly concludes that my interpretation of Plato is an idiosyncratic distortion of the text, I happened upon this today while reading about Thucydides: — Fooloso4

I hope I never accused you of being idiosyncratic or distorting anything. I thought it was a question of how we interpret the text. But it is true that the line between interpreting the text and what the text actually says is uncomfortably fine. Which is not to say that this interpretation is not of great interest, though I think you will admit it is not the traditional interpretation, or at least not the interpretation I was given when I learnt about all this.

On the question of the translation "noble lie", I knew, of course that it is the standard translation. I was questioning whether it was appropriate. There is a case for it, especially in 382, justifying something useful if it is "serviceable" (in Burnet's translation). Whether, and how far, that argument works is the issue.

But the city Socrates makes as a compromise with its luxuries and relishes is still not a city we would wish to live in. It is, in fact, in some ways a less desirable city then the first city. — Fooloso4

I could agree with that.
I'm not sure about the relationship between justice in the ideal city and in actual cities. But you are right, that Plato's project is not to outline either an ideal or an actual one. It is stated, for example, in 382:-

“I will tell you,” I said: “there is a justice of one man, we say, and, I suppose, also of an entire city.” “Assuredly,” said he. “Is not the city larger than the man?” “It is larger,” he said. “Then, perhaps, there would be more justice in the larger object and more easy to apprehend.

Part of the project (though not explicitly stated) is to provide a diagnosis of the various deviant forms of the city, which he tracks back to dominance by a faction other than the rational one. What he has got right here is that when things go wrong, it is because the city is dominated by a faction.

But my objections, I would think, go deeper than that. To start with, he posits a parallel (analogy) between the structure of the person and that of the city. Each has an appetitive element &c. But his analysis is presented as if were a dissection. But insofar as it is correct, or not wrong, it is not a dissection. It is not a question of parts parts of the city or parts of the person. Even it were, the relationship between a city and its citizens and a person and their parts (I'm thinking mainly of physical parts here) is not the same. I'm not sure how far the theory of Forms is involved in this, but it seems plausible to suppose that it is.

The business of the city, over and above that of the citizens, is the good of the whole. — Fooloso4

The parts of a person are not people and have no rights of their own. I am obligated to my body, not for its own sake, but for my sake. The parts of a city are people and they do have rights of their own. The city is obligated to its people, for their own sake, not merely for the role they play in society. There is no business of the city over and above the good of its citizens. If it cannot maintain or improve that, it has no business.
Here's the thing. Each person (even, I think, on Plato's own account) is complete, with an element (if a weak one) of reason, "thumos" and appetite. So the city cannot (without injustice) treat anyone as if they were pure appetite or pure anything else.

It is question of who or what rules. In the just city and soul reason rules. In other cities and souls some other part, spirited or appetitive, leads. — Fooloso4

What matters more is the system and how it works - or, better, how the citizens (including the rulers) make it work.

Equality is the mantra of the Marxist. — Hanover

I thought that a free market meant that everyone had equal access to it and equal rights of contract and property.
Marxism isn't bothered by inequality, but by unfair exploitation. The slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" is not about equality.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is, do you want to live in a fair society? — Vera Mont

Yes. Sometimes fairness means equality. But sometimes equality is unfair.

Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy

It depends on the principles. The right to property bestows rights on everyone. Essentially, it's a deal - I accept restrictions on me because others concede something to me. People accept that because they benefit enough to make the deal worthwhile. The same applies to contracts.

What people do not think about is the fact that the first state welfare was instituted by Bismarck in Germany, not because he was overwhelmed by an altruistic impulse, but because he thought there would be a massive rebellion by the workers unless he did something. See Wikipedia on State Socialism in Germany.

But there is also an argument that a state welfare programme is not altruism, but insurance. (In the UK, those programmes are technically insurance, not hand-outs.) Everyone benefits from insurance against unemployment, sickness and so forth. Even the retirement pension is essentially funded by workers on the basis that they will benefit later on. Only a state policy can offer unlimited cover for these things - and, actually, there are limits to what even states can do.

Is altruism appropriate in this context? Good question. I don't see why a community should not collectively decide on some altruistic actions - but it would be politically undesirable unless there is a consensus at least to accept them.

Make everyone an impoverished slave and feed them all the same bowl of gruel everyday. — fishfry

In one sense, it is true that "equal" means the same, but this is not an absolute. Thus, in a democracy, everyone (i.e. all adult citizens, with some exceptions) gets one vote. Not more, not less. But there are not many contexts in which that sameness is appropriate, or acceptable. The idea that equality means that everyone is the same, or should be treated in the same way in all contexts is little more than political propaganda. No-one believes that.

If there is a parallel staircase where the steps start at 1 and increase as you go up, then there must be a point where the step numbers on both staircases align. What would that step number be? — keystone

Presumable it would be at (the number of steps in the first staircase divided by 2). So? — Ludwig V

Actually, I've bethought myself and realized that the step numbers will only align if the number of steps is odd. If it is even, they won't be such a point. I still don't see that anything of interest follows.

If you'll allow me one more post.

This made me realize that if you can define the staircase down, you have defined the stair-case up. There is an intricacy about defining exactly what a step is, but let's leave that aside. Suppose we define a staircase down with 10 steps (floor level is 0). When I take the first step, there are 9 steps (10 - 1) left 2nd step (10-2)...9th (10-9) and 10th step (0) (floor level). Mutatis mutandis, that is the same in reverse 1st step up leave (10 - 1) and so on. So the staircase down defines the staircase up. No need for two staircases.

I could be wrong here, but I think that for a staircase of N steps, 1st step leaves (N-1) and so on.

If there is a parallel staircase where the steps start at 1 and increase as you go up, then there must be a point where the step numbers on both staircases align. What would that step number be? — keystone

Presumable it would be at (the number of steps in the first staircase divided by 2). So?

Mathematically it has some meaning, but it never has physical meaning, as several have pointed out. — noAxioms

Yes. With a real staircase would exist in both contexts and independently of both of them. Then the first step down is the last step up and the last step down is the first step up. But the last step down is not defined, which means it can't be reached. That's why the game is fascinating and frustrating at the same time, even though it is what I would call, arbitrary.

It is only when the philosophers rule and take on the business of the city that the city stays out of his business. — Fooloso4

Plato was well aware that the politics of the soul and the politics of the city are not the same in all respects. — Fooloso4

But the city has no business of its own, or rather the business of the city is the sum of everybody's business. So when the philosopher takes on the business of the city, he takes on the business of everybody. That's because each person's business is dependent on other people's business and other people's business depends on each person's business. Interdependence, not agglomeration. This applies also to individuals and their parts.
He thinks that analysing something consists entirely of taking it pieces, and doesn't realize that it is necessary to understand the relationship between them. Agglomeration is all he knows.

Had you thought what life would be like for the ordinary people in his city? It's a tyranny. From their point of view, it would be a Machiavellian society run by force and deception. It could count as a benevolent tyranny if only he could think of how things would look from the point of view of the subject citizens. But he can't do that, because he can't recognize most of them as people, because the elements of people are not people and he's stuck in his analogy. The relationship between a citizen and the city is not like the relationship between someone's appetites and them.

He seduces us by telling the story from a stand-point of someone who is not a citizen of his city and focusing on the philosopher, so we imagine his city from the point of view of the philosopher and we follow his point of view. But the people who live in the city have their own points of view and that matters more than Plato's greater good.

A consistent theme throughout the Dialogues is that the best relationship amongst these parts is the source of virtue and true happiness. The pursuit of that relationship is deemed more worthy than the expression of traditional norms. — Paine

The best people, whose opinions are more worthy of consideration.

And does Socrates/Plato know who the best people are? He doesn't even trust his own philosophers, since he expects to foist his "noble lie" (a mistranslation if ever there was one) even on them.

The oracle did not say that Socrates was the wisest, it said that no one was wiser, that is, that others might be as wise as him. — Fooloso4

True There might indeed be others as wise as him, but only if they know that they don't know. But they don't know that, so they are less wise than him. And has he spoken to everyone, to make sure that there is no-one apart from him who knows that they don't know?

The model of the good city is built from the analogy of a person living the best possible life, not the other way around. — Paine

Yes. Arguably, that was Plato's big mistake. The relationship between part and whole is quite different in the two cases. He assumed it was the same.

The resistance to the philosophers as an assault upon traditional values was expressed in many different ways by different authors at the time. — Paine

Well, it was, in many ways. But the assault did not come only from philosophy. Exactly how important other factors (such as the rise of the Persian Empire or the effects of overseas trade &c.) were is hard to determine.

Are you saying that all of those points support any particular conclusion?