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.

On the other hand, I gather there are some places in the world that still practice it, though perhaps under another description. — Ludwig V

Or another name.

An estimated 50 million people were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021, an increase of 10 million people since 2016. https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/

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

Indeed. I'd also be grateful if we stopped naming schools and libraries after politicians and rich benefactors - I doubt we could find one of either in the world, dead or alive, without some dark deeds to hold against them. 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.

don't you think naming schools after rich benefactors serves as a useful incentive to get them to donate? If their vanity is the only reason they donate, why not pander to their vanity and help all those students at the same time?

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.

don't you think naming schools after rich benefactors serves as a useful incentive to get them to donate? — flannel jesus

No, it just inflates their vanity. And they should neither donate to nor own schools and libraries: these institutions should be publicly funded and operated. Nobody should be immortalized for a tax write-off.
It's quite icky enough having to attend plays, concerts and sporting events under the giant name in lights of some robber baron.

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.

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?

You have more faith in educators and literary figures than I do. — Ludwig V

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.

fair enough

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.

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?

I’m not wondering about sympathy. Having feelings is the very least one can do. I’m wondering if you can be just in your redistribution.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes, it's the constant rope-pull between the concept of personal responsibility and social responsibility. People don't just "fall on hard times"; they are affected by economic and social forces far beyond their individual control - sometimes from conception onward. Putting a young offender in school instead of prison can be seen as coddling, or a sacrifice or an investment.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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

Welfare certainly isn't equivalent to charity. 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. The most a welfarist can say he's done to help others is pay a little taxes. Charity at least involves some sacrifice and effort.

I have not seen it demonstrated that anyone demands similarity of outcomes. — Vera Mont

I can't read you the news. I don't think you and I live in the same reality if you believe what you wrote.

I hope you exaggerate. — Ludwig V

Not by much.

I don't think you and I live in the same reality — fishfry

This appears to be the case.

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.

Can they really return everything that has been looted even in just the last hundred years? — Ludwig V

Of course not - except some of the Native land claims. But they can recognize the consequence of those deprivations and benefits on the present generation of inheritors: that one group has unearned material and cultural advantages, because their forebears deprived another group of opportunity and property. To tip the imbalance, all that's required is something like Affirmative Action, or favourable zoning laws or low-interest business loans, or more equitable policing to let the dispossessed group catch up - by its own efforts, in fair competition. It's hard to win a race when your starting line is a 100 yards behind the other runners.

Hi All,
The reason I asked the question, was because after reading Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he states, page 13, in the revised version, that, "Offhand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of greater sum advantages enjoyed by others."

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?

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.

When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? Does it mean if you have enough wealth and you have the opportunity to increase the prospects of others you should.

I give a small amount each month to a charity. I always think that those who can afford to do this should. It could only help make things more equal for some others.

Without trying to describe or justify a whole politcal or philosophical system, I'd like to ask a question. If we could improve equality, is the question below what needs to happen?

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

When you simply say the word 'equality' you leave the audience with no idea what you mean. We can all read into what you mean, but why do that? You SHOULD have started with a very specific definition of what equality means to you for this question.

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

That is because reality itself does not support the idea. All aspects of Consequentialism, and judging choices by their outcomes is only that, are immoral/deceptive.

BOTH political parties are deluded about the issues surrounding equality for one specific reason. That is as follows:

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.

---

So, to finally answer your question, there is no possible MORAL principle that increases the prospects of others and not also me. So, your proposition or principle would have to be immoral to have that consequence.

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

Yes, we do, but we waste too much of it on non-essentials, and bury too much of it in useless accumulation of wealth.

When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? — Rob J Kennedy

No. It means a few people who have gained a great deal of excess - by whatever means - decide at some point to give away part of it. That's not a social contract; that's voluntary largesse: it can be give one day and taken away the next, without ever addressing the fundamental, systemic, entrenched inequities.

I give a small amount each month to a charity. — Rob J Kennedy

So do I, as and when I can afford to. But it only affects a momentary hurt, not the long-term problem.

Very rational, Vera Mont. I’d suggest that all of us who could give did, it would make a huge difference.

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.

I’d suggest that all of us who could give did, it would make a huge difference. — Rob J Kennedy

There is a problem with that - a really big one. Remember, historically, all charity work, taking care of the sick and the aged, educating poor children, raising orphans, etc. was done by the church - and not always tenderly. The ruling elite took no responsibility for society's casualties.
The more slack we pick up with charity, the less government needs to redress social ills. So, the 'conservative' faction can claim that the human collateral damage is the purview of charities, so let's not tax the rich. This means that all redistribution of wealth takes place in the lowest economic tiers, while wealth keeps accumulating in the top ones.

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. — Ludwig V

That is one tremendous big problem.

Worldwide, one-third of food produced is thrown away uneaten, causing an increased burden on the environment. [4] It is estimated that reducing food waste by 15% could feed more than 25 million Americans every year. [5]

As for shelter and medicine, collectively, at the government level, we spend a whole lot more on things designed to make people dead than on things designed to make them well.

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 whether I am already at an advantage or not. As I would say is the thought of many facing the question.

I have self esteem. I don't want to be further trodden down and walked over. Similarly I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of being born with a silver spoon in my mouth that I didn't earn, especially when it means more disadvantage for it others.

If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way.

Society's goods (material and cultural) are not fairly and evenly distributed -- and they never have been. — BC

That's because they're material. Materials can be hoarded. Ideas and personal natures cannot.

It seems what you're saying is merit-based privilege is acceptable (the wealthy hardworking surgeon that saves countless lives), innate privilege is not (a lottery winner that "showered with cash" blows it all on drugs, sex and gambling for example).

The issue with a purely merit based privilege - is that the most unremarkable people - the lazy, the unambitious, the highly social welfare dependent or even the societally deviant - criminals could be argued as not even deserving the innate privilege of life itself. And that is rather eugenic or a "culling of the weakest links".

However in doing so we created an infinite regress of the "worst person" . And that is not sustainable because taken to its extreme it leaves only one highly meritable "perfect" example of humanity. The irony there is that I would expect such a person to not wish this system to be the case. They would obviously be generous charitable people.

Compassion for those we don't identify with but no less value - is the way forward I think.

Should it come down to people who have a lot, having most of their lot taken away to support those that don’t? You know, the greatest good for the greatest number. — Rob J Kennedy

I fear taking away the wealthies money is equivalent taking away their ambition. If they're super talented and hyperintelligent yet never benefit from applying those gifts, they may resign themselves to letting lesser able people to flounder without their assistance.

On the other hand, because money and assets are material, for one to have much, another has to have little. That is a problem indeed.

In an ideal world, everyone is equally talented in diverse and complimentary ways, everyone has equal opportunity to demonstrate said personal talents/gifts, everyone has the resources they need to do so, and everyone is equally supportive and encouraging of one another rather than ruthlessly competitive.

Sadly that simply isn't the case. Some people cannot access their innate talents through education and opportunity, some are unambitious/lazy, some are easily dissuaded/highly doubtful and others are psychopathic - lacking all compassion and willing to destroy if they cannot be on top.