But the larger point is that you have heard about people these days who prefer equity to equality, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. — fishfry

I've heard of people who want equity, yes. I have no idea what all this "outcome" babble is about. What exactly is being demanded in terms of the "outcome" - that is result - of what endeavour? Is someone demanding that children should all have decent food and shelter and a safe environment, so that they can do well in school? Is someone demanding that adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
Is someone demanding that people who do the grunt work of society be compensated with a living wage? Or that claiming that a man who has four-hour lunches doesn't deserve 400 times the pay of the man who welds car chassis? Or that the people most likely to be arrested for crimes should not have the worst legal representation? Yes, I've heard those things. Yes, I want those things, too.

Do you follow New York City politics and current events? — fishfry

I have no reason to give a flying fig about New York politics.

Can you see how some people might think that compassion to criminals, no matter how well intentioned, can end up becoming a pronounced lack of compassion for their victims? — fishfry

The fucked-up criminal justice system is just another symptom of a generally fucked-up political and economic system. Far too big a topic for idle conversation.

Have I got that right? — fishfry

AFAICT, you ain't got nothin' right.

This news has not yet reached your province? — fishfry

Imagine the nerve of somebody demanding fair treatment for all kinds of people, even the designated victims! Appalling, innit?

If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way. — Benj96

Even the middle can have an opinion of what's right and wrong with his social arrangement and how it might be improved. Anyway, only one person can perfectly in the middle; all the rest of us are somewhere on the spectrum.

People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia. — Benj96

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.

With art and issues of the ambiguous area of political correctness, there is the issue of it being art as opposed to 'real life' and how much influence does artistic representation have? — Jack Cummins

I think this is another instance of putting too many disparate elements into sentence. I have trouble understanding the subject under scrutiny and what is to be discussed. It would be helpful, I think, and might save misunderstanding and explanations later, to use shorter sentences with just one yes/no, either/or this/that pair of ideas in each.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This appears to be the case.

Perhaps, but refusing to try to reduce past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense to simple moral principles would have left us ignorant of the core of what makes us human. — Mark S

I cannot agree that reduction leads to greater understanding. Even if it were so, reducing all moral norms and precepts to simple principles leaves a brand new science with nothing left to discover, and that would be a waste.
As to "the core of what makes us human" - assuming there is such a thing - everybody and his uncle Mose has come up with answers. But why do you care?

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.

I advocate for scientific truth of the usual provisional kind. — Mark S

Yes, that's fine, insofar as the scientists go - assuming it's even possible to establish a scientific basis for the "truth" about moral precepts. But hand that scientific finding to a political ideologue, and it ends up like Social Darwinism and eugenics.

Why do you call the principles that explain virtually everything we know about past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense — Mark S

I didn't. I said reducing diversity to simple principles can lead to facile categorization.

Authenticity also involves questioning of social roles and norms. — Jack Cummins

I see. Personal reflection and perspective. That's something every intelligent adolescent does, whether they articulate their conclusions or not. In my circle, we wrote everything down in essay form and discussed our ideas ad nauseum. For less word-oriented people, it comes as rebellion against rules, against authority, against religious dogma. I think it's an important part of growing up, and essential to responsible citizenship: the unexamined principle tends to become dogma and dogmatism is dangerous.

It is questionable to what extent there is a place for philosophical martyrs within secular ethics, however, without the idea of rewards in the afterlife. — Jack Cummins

Martyrdom need not be sought deliberately. Many non-religious people put themselves in harm's way in order to uphold a principle - like, say, democracy, racial equality, national identity or economic justice - that they consider important enough.

How about understanding why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist? — Mark S

That's what Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and History are for. They record, observe and analyze human behaviours and relationships over time, so that we may discern patterns and explain events.
The sciences observe, experiment, measure and formulate.
If you reduce "the diversity, contradictions, and strangeness of our moral sense and past and present cultural moral norms" to simple principles, you're far too likely to end up with facile categorization or a rigid ideology.

The finding of a truly authentic morality is complex because so much is about values handed down during socialisation, with potential for modifications. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure what you mean by 'authentic'. Original? Personal? Unique? Effective?
As far as I can see, moral and ethical issues are always decided in the public sphere, rather than invented by individuals. The 10 commandments may have been carved by Moses, but they had to reflect the values of his people, or they would not have accepted either or the rules or the leader who announced them. I can't imagine humans learning to behave ethically, except through socialization in early childhood. I agree, however, that individuals do adapt the prevailing code to their own understanding of what's good and bad, and some individuals contribute disproportionately to changes in social mores, and that each generation brings a new perspective to the traditional belief system.

Do you not think that projection is an important aspect of hatred — Jack Cummins

Very likely. Of course, imagination and projection play a role in all of our complex emotional states, so this would be true of personal hatreds as well as ethnic or class ones.
As to the wars and oppressions, there is usually a practical motive behind the propaganda. Even if that unacknowledged goal only benefits a small minority, the populace can usually be persuaded to take out its frustrations and resentments on a designated scapegoat. There is always a segment that can hardly wait for permission to express its dark side.
But these motivations don't necessarily lead to the kind of governance we usually mean by totalitarian. They can move the loyal subjects of a 'good' king, the faithful flocks of a 'good' pope or the patriotic constituents of a democratically elected president.

As for potential totalitarianism, I see it as an authoritarian response to the existential fear of the panorama of the pluralism, in a multicultural and multifaith/worldviews. — Jack Cummins

I don't see that. North America was diverse all through the 19th and 20th centuries, and there were plenty of local rivalries, enmities and conflicts, but there was no threat of a megalomaniac taking over the Canadian government or tearing up the US constitution or outlawing opposition parties.

Now, there is a prevailing anxiety regarding the future - whether there is one - due to the imminent end of work, the unstable world economy, the pressure of mass migration, the prospects of more and bigger weather events, the threat of nuclear war and famine, and the lack of ideals to believe in. This is the kind of fear that calls for a protector, a father figure, a "strong man" who promises to fix things, restore the correct faith and return all your former security and privilege (whether you had any or not).

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.

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.

You can read far quicker that you can listen to someone reading. — ssu

Maybe, but while someone is talking or reading to you, especially if it's recorded, you can do something else at the same time. A book requires you complete attention.

I'm not minimizing the importance of listening. For example, sewing or pasta-making circles where women's hands were busy, but their minds were idle. Taking turns reading aloud brought a little knowledge and pleasure into their lives. Reading to preschool children is even more important; as they crave independence, they're motivated to read for themselves. It was a good idea, too, to have students read aloud - it promoted reading facility and comprehension.

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.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Granted. We're a mad, bad species with moments of brilliant goodness. I was referring specifically to the statement itself: "Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak." That's what I was asking: Who are 'the weak' and how do moral laws disenfranchise them? I don't see this in any moral system I'm aware of.

The authentic morality would be based on wisdom, or some degree of self-mastery. — Jack Cummins

Does that mean all past and current concepts of morality are inauthentic? Or that they don't require self-mastery?

However, such self-mastery is not without awareness of one's weaknesses, as opposed to the perfectionism aspired to by the Abrahamic religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Aspiring toward perfection is at the center of all religious ideals. But none expect each individual to be capable of perfection; the Abrahamic religions have built in mechanisms to atone for wrong-doing and seek forgiveness for trespasses, in the full expectation that even the most fervent believers will fall short of perfection.

So much is projection of 'evil' onto others and this is happening in both the left and right of politics, including the backlash against political correctness. — Jack Cummins

How does that relate to secular ethics? Accusations and hyperbole are cheap, dishonest tactics in a conflict.
(BTW, you could perhaps examine that apparently balanced "both the left and right of politics" and compare the truth content of claims actually made by representatives of those factions.)

Such a backlash paves the way for Neo-Nazi totalitarianism and that worry is probably the basis for my incongruous mixture of sources for my initial outpost. — Jack Cummins

I understand your concern, but I think you misplace the origins of the problem. Totalitarianism is not about morality or ethics or law or civil discourse. It's the result of anxiety (insecurity and fear) caused by societal breakdown. Certainly, corruption in the pursuit of wealth and power play a large part in the slow implosion we're witnessing. But it's not because the principles were wrong; it's because the principles are slighted, breached, then abandoned altogether, first by the elite, imitated by the privileged classes, and finally the masses.

I agree with you in principle that equality is good, but these days that's not enough for a lot of people, and you seem to be denying that's the case. — fishfry

Seem to be denying? I didn't notice that. I was responding to the OP question. Equality was always unpopular with the people who considered themselves better than others through birth and wealth, more worthy of acclaim and privilege. And those are the people who have traditionally made the rules for everyone - they still largely do.

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. If you mean that some people demand special treatment for various reasons, I don't deny that either, and would consider the demands case by case. I certainly wouldn't pass judgment on the basis of a blanket accusation.

Some people in the public square these days would burn you at the stake for arguing for equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. — fishfry

Some people in the public square these days would shoot you on sight for being a judge or not wanting a baby or wearing a rainbow teeshirt. Violent times, these. I have not seen it demonstrated that anyone demands similarity of outcomes. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by "outcome".
Everybody doesn't want to be an artist or doctor or executive, but none of the artists, doctors and executives could do the work they do or live the life they live without all the farmers, builders and mechanics who maintain the world.
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?

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. — Ludwig V

That's because some Westerners still think slavery was a good idea and defending it was heroic.
Personally, I'm all for public art, but totally opposed to monuments. Today's hero is almost certain to be tomorrow's villain.

I'm not a big fan of turning humanities into sciences.

What do you think will ensure global cooperation instead of global annihilation? — Truth Seeker

Mars Attacks! Maybe. The giant asteroid heading for Earth? Maybe. If climate change hasn't done it yet, I'm not counting on either of those.

Tear down statues — fishfry

What's that to do with equality or equity? Outcomes owe a whole lot to beginnings. It doesn't mean that everything (??) should be the same or that everyone should be the same, it means that everyone should have the same chance of a positive outcome.
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.
That doesn't denote anything even close to equality or equity in those places. BTW, Marx is in both parks, though he doesn't deserve it.

My quoting of Cormac McCarthy was on the basis of it being a point worthy of reflection — Jack Cummins

I I didn't ask why you printed the quote; I asked on what basis you agree with it. But perhaps you have not yet reflected enough to know whether you do agree with it.

Most moral systems evolved in conjunction with religious worldviews and the move towards more secular ideas has not been straightforward. — Jack Cummins

The purview of religious codes is the welfare of the soul - or man's keeping on the right side of his god(s); it rules on matters of sacrifice and penance, sex and marriage, ritual practice and the three rites of passage. Alongside this, there was always a secular law code to rule on mundane matters like business transactions, taxation, land ownership and water rights, as well as orderly public conduct. They're straightforward enough by the lights of each society, according their circumstances and economy.

It definitely seems that the backlashes of the present time may be far 'longer and fiercer' than the original movements towards liberation. — Jack Cummins

?? You were talking about 'political correctness'. How did it turn into 'liberation' and to whose liberation from what are you referring?

Enabling that process to satisfy all parties is the really important and difficult bit. — Ludwig V

I gu3ess that's the point of social and ethical philosophy. With the right set of mental tools, one comes prepared to the conference table, demonstration or barricade.

It would be nice if books could be printed on flax or hemp or some other fibre. We're losing trees fast enough to fire every summer; we shouldn't be pulping them for books. Especially college textbooks. We used to sell those things - they were so heavy, carrying three would just about cripple a non-athletic student, and that size was completely unnecessary: in 1920, they could cram the same amount of Algebra or Chemistry into a book that fit in a pocket. The print was small, the paper was thin and matte, and the book featured no 3" margins, sidebars or big glossy pictures.

So, if the early 21st century version is the only textbook format legislators know and publishers can imagine, I understand why they would not want students to have to shell out $100-250 for one that will be displaced by a new edition within three years. Nor will I miss hard cover copies of trendy business success books or faddish self-help and inspirational books. Pulp fiction can safely be relegated to entertainment media, as far as I'm concerned.

But for reference, poetry and literature, I like having real books. I also see an important place for children's picture and story books - something they can own, return to and cherish.

It is true that Cormac McCarthy's statement is an overgeneralisation, and I don't wish to make too much of an issue of this, but your post's quote of it does make it look like mine. — Jack Cummins

I assumed you quoted it because you agree with it, and I wondered on what basis you agree with it.

If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

You mean it just "feels" like it should be true? Generalizations often feel this way, whether they are accurate or not; they articulate an idea that we have not (?yet) formulated. It's easy to let them slide past without too much scrutiny, and to generalize them even further, onto subjects that engage our attention - whether they are appropriate to those subjects or not.
This is what I think happened to your OP: the topics of P3, 4 and 5 do not seem directly related to P1.

The role of religion has played such a significant role in ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

Morality is entirely a religious idea of what is virtue and what is sin according a god. Of course, that immediately becomes political, since gods are the Wizard-of-Oz puppets of a ruling elite. The secular/societal version of the idea is ethics: how members of a community need to behave in order to preserve peace and order.

If anything, the history of philosophy has been filled with racist and sexist comments. — Jack Cummins

Philosophers are products of their time and culture, like everyone else. Each individual philosopher may question, even reject, some aspect of the prevailing attitudes, while accepting a whole body of thought as the natural order of things. I suppose Nietzsche was more radical then most; because more unhappy and discontented than most, he questioned and rejected more of his society's middle-class mores.

It may have been that awareness of historical issues of racism and sexism gave rise to the movement of political correctness and wokeism. — Jack Cummins

Of course. Every movement is a response to what came before it. People got fed up with the crude jokes, ugly stereotypes, baseless characterizations and casual insults. While subscribing to the principle of freedom of speech, I very much prefer civil public discourse. I don't miss many of the words that were common parlance in my youth. Of course, every movement is a response to what came before it. The backlash against 'political correctness' has been much longer and fiercer than the movement itself was.

'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. — Jack Cummins

This seems to me a far more sweeping generalization than the refusal to sell music. Are specific examples given of which moral precept disenfranchises which group of "the weak" - and who they are?

What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. — Jack Cummins

Moral "laws" are religious in origin. They connect to civil law through the religious affiliation of those who have sufficient power to influence the law. But moral laws are far more adhered-to by the powerless faithful than their rulers.

Of course they're about values. All ideological, moral, ethical and legal judgments are.

This may be relevant for thinking about cultural clashes and about ideas of 'political correctness'. In such ideas it may be that values are being upheld to an extreme as though they are 'laws'. — Jack Cummins

By some people some of the time. Others continue to publish racist slurs and extreme political screeds, personal attacks and obscene literature. A moral precept isn't written into actual law until the majority of lawmakers in some constituency decide it's to their advantage.

There are other consequences besides level of knowledge. There are cognitive changes: short memory retention, because new information is coming in too fast to process; shortening attention span, diminution of awareness of one's surroundings.
I think the most damaging aspect is loss of quiet contemplative solitude. Their world is far too busy, too noisy for long term health.

Did I suggest that any of them was? — Ludwig V

Not specifically. But in response my having been specific, you remarked that sometimes equality can be unfair. I'd already dealt with the sameness herring.

What if people who are excluded protest that they should be included? — Ludwig V

Exemption doesn't mean exclusion. When it does, people do protest and clamour for change. Social organization is an on-going negotiation among interested factions. But if the constitution is set up fairly in the first place, there is less room for contentions.

So these attempts were a matter of caring about something else (your spouse, your health), more than smoking. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. What I wanted most was to not smoke. The method failed because it centered on a negative and thereby kept the craving ever in focus. What works is making a conscious decision to change direction and then proceed in that direction, concentrate on a positive goal and leave the habit behind, make it irrelevant.

But sometimes equality is unfair. — Ludwig V

Which of the specific kinds of social equality I mentioned is unfair? [equality under the law, equal rights of voting, equal rights to freedom of speech and association; equal pay for equal work; equal access to education and health care; or equal opportunity]
It's quite true that it would be unfair to try a child in adult court or expect a disabled veteran to perform physical labour - but these exemptions come with criteria and limits that can be agreed on by consensus, rather than decreed by a ruler.

I thought that a free market meant that everyone had equal access to it and equal rights of contract and property. — Ludwig V

So did Ayn Rand. But only a very few are born into property, and everyone else has more access to debt than to property. There is no free market and there never has been.

But why in this case do we readily choose no, while simultaneously lingering in yes? — ENOAH

Because the question is phrased in such a way as to threaten you, whichever answer you give. If you say yes, something you have will be taken away. If you say no, you're being mean to people less fortunate than yourself.
But that's not really the issue. The issue is, do you want to live in a fair society?
We don't have to contend with scarcity; we have to contend with disparity.
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.

The overarching desire was to quit smoking, and it took you a few attempts to find the method suited to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not exactly. The previous attempts were at the urging of spouse, or because of the usual arguments about what's good for you. They worked for a while - I mean, I really tried to quit for those reasons, and the resolve lasted from three to six weeks. But I couldn't write on just cheese and coffee, and i was crabby all the time and didn't like myself. When it became a matter of life or death, it suddenly got a lot simpler.

The end goal is to quit, but the successful method varies depending on the person. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. I'm just saying that for success, it's more productive to concentrate on the positive outcome - what they want - than to dwell on the negative - what they want not to. And that the decision must be made.

he issue here is the possibility of failure, which is very strong with addictions. If a person proceeds toward quitting by caring about something, or someone, more than smoking, then the smoker depends on this other thing, or other person, to support one's own will power, as a sort of crutch — Metaphysician Undercover

I cared more about living. On previous occasions, when I concentrated on "not-smoking", I was still thinking all the time about the cigarette I was "not-smoking"; it was still the focal point. Once you move your focus to the better goal - e.g. survival - you don't think quite so much about the thing you're giving up and that saves a lot of energy.

If it smells funny, check it out!

Social equality must be qualified, else someone will trump it by saying we are not created equal so what's the point of comparing success rates? Men and women are not the same, so how could you treat them the same? That's the sleight-of-mind there, conflating social equality with individual similarity.

In a society, you can set for principles of equality if you say what kind: equality under the law, equal rights of voting, equal rights to freedom of speech and association; equal pay for equal work; equal access to education and health care; equal opportunity.

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.

I hope you are right. — Truth Seeker

I hope so, too. You have to move on. You can't let yourself be stuck in regret over something you can't fix. You have to accept your own limitations - and what's much harder, mankind's. You have to concentrate on the small good things: the number of people who have changed the way eat, the way they use resources, the way they think; the people who dedicate their lives to making things better. As a species, we may be self-destructive, but individually, we are not a complete loss - many of us are worth cherishing, respecting, supporting, helping. Do what you can do and don't deny yourself the pleasure of small victories, just because the big ones are beyond your reach.

I despair. — Truth Seeker

You'll move on from that, too. You know the stages of mourning? It's like that: eventually, you reach acceptance, make peace with the way of things, and just do what good you can in your small sphere of influence.