Normative/moral Political philosophy and the egalitarian plateau

[moorobot]

We've been discussing this in the politics forum and I wanted to see what some other people thought.

In my view, following Ronald Dworkin, every plausible political philsophy has the same ultimate value, which is equality. They are all egalitarian theories. This suggestion is of course clearly false if by 'egalitarian theory' we mean a theory which supports an equal distribution of income.

But there is another, more abstract and more fundemental idea of equality in political theory, namely, the idea of treating people 'as equals'. A theory is egalitarian in this sense if it accepts that the interests each member of the community matter, and matter equally. Put another way, egalitarian theories require that the government treat its citizens with equal consideration; each citizen is entitled to equal concern and respect. Similarly, a normative theory of anarchy must show why anarchy is the form of social organization which best expresses the idea of treating people 'as equals'. The more basic notion of equality is found in Nozick's libertarianism as much as in Marx's communism. While lefitsts believe that equality of income or wealth is a precondition of treating people as equals, those on the right believe that equal rights over one's labour and property are a precondition for treating people as equals.

If a theory claimed that some people were not entitled to equal consideration by government, if it claimed that certain kinds of people just do not matter as much as others, then most people in the modern world would reject that theory immediately.

To me, each (contemporary) political theory is attempting to define the social, economic and political conditions under which the members of a society are treated as equals. Hence political theory is a matter of interpreting equality, and we might be able to show that one of the theories does a better job of living up to the standard that they all recognize.

Any thoughts? Could I extend this to all ethical/moral theory in general and say that all moral/ethical theories worth our time are premised on equality?

[guesswest]

Plato's tripartite state does't seem egalitarian to me?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Plato's tripartite state does't seem egalitarian to me?

[/ QUOTE ] Right, not every theory in the history of the world was egalitarian in this sense. But almost everybody in the modern world, as I mentioned, immediately rejects a theory like Plato's because of the inegalitarianism, right?

Plato in fact even argued that his theory was the best for everyone in that society, did he not???

[guesswest]

Sorry - read 'following Dworkin' as 'in accordance with', not 'post'.

Still, I'm not sure it's quite that universal. I have friends who'll argue hereditary legislative bodies like the house of lords in the UK are a good thing because they're objective and not pandering to an electorate. I'm pretty sure they'd make that argument while accepting it resulted in an inegalitarian state (to some extent).

[guesswest]

Just saw your edit. Certainly, but 'best' is a very different thing I think.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
A theory is egalitarian in this sense if it accepts that the interests each member of the community matter, and matter equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that, but it hardly means I would predicate a political philosophy on the idea of egalitarianism. In fact, egalitarianism isn't even consistent with that definition. According to your standard of achieving the most equality, a society in which everyone is miserable to an equal degree is superior to a society in which everyone is happy, but some are happier than others.

If that isn't your view, then you clearly value something above equality.

[madnak]

Plato clearly didn't mean "equal" when he said "best." On the contrary, he believed that an unequal system was best for everyone.

[tonysoldier]

Your very question is rooted in a humanist project which has been abandoned for the most part in continental philosophy. The very meaning or possibility of "equality" or of people being treated "the same" invokes a complex of troubling presuppositions. The idea of a basic sameness is as much dangerous as it is utopian. Political philosophy is not my field, but certainly philosophers like Nancy and Butler among many others would be an interesting, very divergent perspective.

[DougShrapnel]

Is a political theory that puts a 'salary cap' such as, no one can earn more the 20x, 50x, or 100x the minimum wage an egalitarian one?

[ QUOTE ]
If a theory claimed that some people were not entitled to equal consideration by government, if it claimed that certain kinds of people just do not matter as much as others, then most people in the modern world would reject that theory immediately.


[/ QUOTE ] Those that recieved more consideration by government almost never reject the theory, and certianly never immediately.

I'm not sure if theories based on equality are possible without a denial of evolution.

[guesswest]

We should be distinguishing luck egalitarianism here, ala Dworkin as mentioned by the OP. It does not diminish an egaliatarian political model to say that someone born with a 70 IQ is not going to be a nuclear physicist.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
While lefitsts believe that equality of income or wealth is a precondition of treating people as equals, those on the right believe that equal rights over one's labour and property are a precondition for treating people as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the economic perspective, equality of opportunity is what counts, like at the poker table. That is what should be maintained in society to ensure maximum prosperity.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
certainly philosophers like Nancy and Butler among many others would be an interesting, very divergent perspective.

[/ QUOTE ] What are the first names of these philosophers?

[NobodysFreak]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, a normative theory of anarchy must show why anarchy is the form of social organization which best expresses the idea of treating people 'as equals'.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, social organization under anarchy is contingent and not necessary. To say that the burden of proof for equality lies on the person touting anarchy is incorrect. The above quotation is attempting to take premises necessary for certain types of social organizations and applying them to situations where these premises are rejected by definition.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
We should be distinguishing luck egalitarianism here, ala Dworkin as mentioned by the OP. It does not diminish an egaliatarian political model to say that someone born with a 70 IQ is not going to be a nuclear physicist.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see why Dworkin chooses to distinguish between genectic egaliatatian, and the concessions that are made when being born into any 'egalatarian' system. The genereal idea of democracy is political egalatarism. But in order for political egalatatism to be realized all must be born with an equal amount of concern for politics. Persons born into poverty have more pressing concerns on their hands. Others may find questions with no real "correct" answer, that also require imediate actions to be worrisome and will stay away. We can require those of wealth to burden the load of those born poor, just as well as we can require those with low IQ's to not breed. Certian individuals will find disgust in both, either, or niether of those ideas. We don't realise that it is only our social conditioning that sets these two apart. I don't see any need to distinguish regarding luck egaliatianism, and political. Anyone that uses the term egalatarian to desribe a political system or philospical one, is really saying I'm good at or I benefit from what I want equal treatment under. The problem is in order to maintain any sort of egalatatarism, we must spend resuorces, spending those resources further unbalances a different part(s) of the system. This is perhaps part of dworkins argument about equality of what. The only close to correct answer is equality from artifical systems of equality.

[guesswest]

Well, he possibly has a number of reasons for distinguishing between the two. But certainly the most obvious is that political systems can't do anything about the genetic hand we're dealt.

As much as it pains me to say it, Sharkey probably has it right when he identifies the goal of egalitarian political systems as equality of 'opportunity'. It's this notion that sees free education and healthcare (sorta, on the latter) for all as a widely agreed upon goal of modern politics. This idea of equality of opportunity doesn't restrict individual human achievement, it just makes society something closer to a meritocracy.

Certainly humans are prone to be self-serving and are likely to dishonestly bring into being states of affairs advantageous to themselves, and will do this under the banner of 'equality' or anything else that's convenient - but I think it's cynical and just plain incorrect to suggest that's always the case.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, social organization under anarchy is contingent and not necessary. To say that the burden of proof for equality lies on the person touting anarchy is incorrect. The above quotation is attempting to take premises necessary for certain types of social organizations and applying them to situations where these premises are rejected by definition.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, so they have to show why anarchy is the form of social DISorganization best expresses the idea of treating people as equals?

[moorobot]

Doug-even in the United States, the most inegalitarian of the advanced western democracies, in a recent anon. survey (performed by economists), 24% of the people who make over $150,000 dollars/year answered that they were strongly in favor of redistributive programs to increase the ammount of economic equality via a progressive tax on income in access of $150,000. A lot of people (less than 24%-I forget the exact number because the other one makes me happier /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) who make under $10,000 a year answered that they strongly disagree with the same statement.

And wealth is not well correlated with views about justice/normative political theory. it is somewhat well correlated with empirical views about politics however i.e. the poor are responsible for there own plight or they are not. the rich are more likely to think inequalities in wealth are due to choice (in this case choice means hard work and willingness to take risks) and not circumstance, and vice versa. But they both tend to favor compensation for the poor when they are based on circumstance.

My point is that moral motivation exists. It is stronger in some people than others, and self-interest blurs some people's worldview more than others. But 'moral motivation' is real.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
This idea of equality of opportunity doesn't restrict individual human achievement, it just makes society something closer to a meritocracy.


[/ QUOTE ] A Dworkinian society would not restrict human achievement. It would just restict the monetary reward for it.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he possibly has a number of reasons for distinguishing between the two. But certainly the most obvious is that political systems can't do anything about the genetic hand we're dealt.


[/ QUOTE ] Sure they can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) , we have determined that it is unethical to do so. Currently more humans value politcal, and social equality more so then genetic equality.

[ QUOTE ]
As much as it pains me to say it, Sharkey probably has it right when he identifies the goal of egalitarian political systems as equality of 'opportunity'. It's this notion that sees free education and healthcare (sorta, on the latter) for all as a widely agreed upon goal of modern politics. This idea of equality of opportunity doesn't restrict individual human achievement, it just makes society something closer to a meritocracy.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't have any problems with sharkey, of course I've never tried to convince him that evolution is correct. Some politcal systems strive for equal opportunity some destroy oppotunity in order to equalize other more important areas. Free education and Health Care attemp to equalize members of society, not opportunity. Free education is directly opposed to a meritocracy. There are costs involved and the brighter kids suffer at the expense of the less apt and disinterested ones.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly humans are prone to be self-serving and are likely to dishonestly bring into being states of affairs advantageous to themselves, and will do this under the banner of 'equality' or anything else that's convenient - but I think it's cynical and just plain incorrect to suggest that's always the case.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not cynical, people could very well vote for the system that makes them feel beter, because they care about other people. But that is the advantage of the system. They care alot about other people who arent' as fortunate as they are. Not everyone does, and the advantage is that those who care don't have to pay the full cost. If that is not an advantage then it could be wrong.

[NobodysFreak]

An anarchist may very well find value in social organizations and equality, but what I'm saying is that this is a contingent matter and not one of necessity. The burdern of proof doesn't lie on all anarchists to explain how and why equality is important. Some may find it important and find reasons to do so. Others may not. The point is that anarchy doesn't necessitate any overarching unyielding system of equality. It's semantic hairsplitting, but its fundamental to understanding anarchy.

[DougShrapnel]

robot, I'm not sure what the number you are quoting really mean to you. 24% of the +150,000 earners would like the law to require them to pay a havier burden of the taxes. And I'll use the number ~80% of the destitute(-10,000 earners were in favor of it. This seems to be people answering based mainly on the economic effect caused to them. With a few people answering on unknown reasons, moral grounds is a good speculation.

[ QUOTE ]
willingness to take risks) and not circumstance

[/ QUOTE ] Certianly a contradiction, no?

[ QUOTE ]
But they both tend to favor compensation for the poor when they are based on circumstance.


[/ QUOTE ] The problem is that there is always a valid perspective that it is circumstance, or at least indeterminate.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that moral motivation exists. It is stronger in some people than others, and self-interest blurs some people's worldview more than others. But 'moral motivation' is real.

[/ QUOTE ] It sure is, I didn't want to give the impression I think otherwise. About the only thing on this board that I argue well is ethics.

One of my points is that if we decide as a society to create artificial equalities we must in the process destroy the equality of (a) different part(s) of society. The poor was mainly used as an example of economic equality at the cost of personal freedom.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, he possibly has a number of reasons for distinguishing between the two. But certainly the most obvious is that political systems can't do anything about the genetic hand we're dealt.


[/ QUOTE ] Sure they can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) , we have determined that it is unethical to do so. Currently more humans value politcal, and social equality more so then genetic equality.

[ QUOTE ]
As much as it pains me to say it, Sharkey probably has it right when he identifies the goal of egalitarian political systems as equality of 'opportunity'. It's this notion that sees free education and healthcare (sorta, on the latter) for all as a widely agreed upon goal of modern politics. This idea of equality of opportunity doesn't restrict individual human achievement, it just makes society something closer to a meritocracy.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't have any problems with sharkey, of course I've never tried to convince him that evolution is correct. Some politcal systems strive for equal opportunity some destroy oppotunity in order to equalize other more important areas. Free education and Health Care attemp to equalize members of society, not opportunity. Free education is directly opposed to a meritocracy. There are costs involved and the brighter kids suffer at the expense of the less apt and disinterested ones.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly humans are prone to be self-serving and are likely to dishonestly bring into being states of affairs advantageous to themselves, and will do this under the banner of 'equality' or anything else that's convenient - but I think it's cynical and just plain incorrect to suggest that's always the case.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not cynical, people could very well vote for the system that makes them feel beter, because they care about other people. But that is the advantage of the system. They care alot about other people who arent' as fortunate as they are. Not everyone does, and the advantage is that those who care don't have to pay the full cost. If that is not an advantage then it could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too lazy to quote piece by piece here, so will number:

1. I just meant that literally - ie politics can't change our genes.

2. I don't have a problem with sharkey either, that was mostly tongue in cheek. I can't see how removing universal education is moving towards a meritocracy, that seems completely counter-intuitive to me. You have no way of knowing which kids will demonstrate what amount of ability/merit until you put them in an education system in the first place. Hence equality of opportunity.

3. Yes they could do that (though I'd say as far as human psychology goes, that'd be extremely rare). But, if someone is voting for an egalitarian system with the reasoning that they will benefit from it more than others (which is what you said in your previous post)...then either they're mistaken in their belief that they'll be advantaged more than others, or the system they're voting for is in fact not egalitarian.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I just meant that literally - ie politics can't change our genes.


[/ QUOTE ] It can in a couple of generations. About as effective as other types of artificial equlity measures, perhaps moreso.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how removing universal education is moving towards a meritocracy, that seems completely counter-intuitive to me. You have no way of knowing which kids will demonstrate what amount of ability/merit until you put them in an education system in the first place. Hence equality of opportunity.


[/ QUOTE ] I know some college and private school administrators that would beg to differ. IQ tests are one such exapmle. They don't tell us much as adults but are quite effective for children. We provide free education at the cost not only of the students but at the opportunity cost of the teachers. We deny them opportunity so that we can provide an artificial 'equal' opportunity to all children.

[ QUOTE ]
the system they're voting for is in fact not egalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ] "Egalitarian" systems are overly-utopic by nature. Some one is paying for the state of the system to be equalized. It's just not possible to artificially create equality without massive costs.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. I just meant that literally - ie politics can't change our genes.


[/ QUOTE ] It can in a couple of generations. About as effective as other types of artificial equlity measures, perhaps moreso.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how removing universal education is moving towards a meritocracy, that seems completely counter-intuitive to me. You have no way of knowing which kids will demonstrate what amount of ability/merit until you put them in an education system in the first place. Hence equality of opportunity.


[/ QUOTE ] I know some college and private school administrators that would beg to differ. IQ tests are one such exapmle. They don't tell us much as adults but are quite effective for children. We provide free education at the cost not only of the students but at the opportunity cost of the teachers. We deny them opportunity so that we can provide an artificial 'equal' opportunity to all children.

[ QUOTE ]
the system they're voting for is in fact not egalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ] "Egalitarian" systems are overly-utopic by nature. Some one is paying for the state of the system to be equalized. It's just not possible to artificially create equality without massive costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point by point again:

1. Ok, if you're talking eugenics. But that is by no means the genetic equivalent of luck egalitarianism.

2. Firstly, IQ tests are not very useful for kids that age - nor are they close to 100% reliable generally. They're some kind of indication but if it was the sole criteria (and I can't think of any others out there) for allowing kids the opportunity to get an education there are a great many extremely talented and bright kids would never see the inside of a school. There are also a lot of high IQ kids that do badly in school. I very much doubt your friends in education do not believe in universal education - I think they're probably talking about segregating/kicking kids out by ability after they're already in the system and have shown their merit or lack thereof. Kicking kids out of school who didn't perform would not be inegalitarian at all - but not giving them the chance to do so would.

3. I feel like you've really misunderstood the whole idea of egalitarianism here, it is not a synonym for all kinds of equality, it is not about treating people the same. It's equality of 'value', not of treatment, equality of treatment would be something approaching fascism. The egalitarian principle is what sees us all get one vote - it doesn't say anything about how we use it.

[tonysoldier]

Jean-Luc and Judith

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Free education is directly opposed to a meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ] As Diamond and Giddens put it "pure meritocracy is incoherent because, without redistribution, one generation's successful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated."

Meritocracy itself is opposed to a meritocracy: it is impossible to achieve.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

willingness to take risks) and not circumstance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certianly a contradiction, no?

[/ QUOTE ] In my view yes, in most people's no.

[ QUOTE ]
One of my points is that if we decide as a society to create artificial equalities we must in the process destroy the equality of (a) different part(s) of society. The poor was mainly used as an example of economic equality at the cost of personal freedom.

[/ QUOTE ] In is generally more accurate to say that economic equality achieved via redistribution is not eliminating freedom but redistributing it. Private property is a distribution of both freedom and unfreedom, because ownership of a thing by one person presupposes non-ownership of that thing for everyone else. Right now it would be trespassing if I pitched a tent in your yard (perhaps because i want to annoy you or perhaps because I have no place to live), but if it was turned into a public park or if the property right to it was redistributed to me than I could go ahead and put the tent up. Redistribution changes who has the legal right to use the thing in question.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
A Dworkinian society would not restrict human achievement. It would just restict the monetary reward for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are contradictory.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free education is directly opposed to a meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ] As Diamond and Giddens put it "pure meritocracy is incoherent because, without redistribution, one generation's successful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated."

Meritocracy itself is opposed to a meritocracy: it is impossible to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism is purely meritorious (i.e. won't use the term "meritocracy" because it implies a system of government). Those who are the most productive and satisfy the most consumers are rewarded. One of those rewards is the accumulation of capital, which of course serves to satisfy consumers even more, since it underlies increases in productivity. Another reward is conferred on the producer/saver/accumulator through inheritence. The producer has an incentive to keep accumulating, increasing productivity, and satisfying ever more customers ever more even as he approaches death, for he can secure the prosperity of his heirs (who in a very real sense are his immortality, carrying his genes).

If his heirs do not continue his legacy of savings, investments, and satisfying consumers, the capital stock left to them will be lost, and will be automatically redistributed throughout society to the meritorious by the actions of the market.