"An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society."

[natedogg]

A recent quote from Brad DeLong, a well known party-line guy for the "reality based community" of economist bloggers (who as a rule base all their writings and analysis on whether or not it is helpful or harmful to Bush.)

DeLong, a professor of Econ at my esteemed alma mater UC Berkeley recently made this statement. "An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society."

Let's forgive him for failing to define his terms (if he had taken more philosophy he'd understand the importance of semantics here). I'll assume that what he means by "unequal" is "people with unequal amounts of wealth/income" and what he means by 'unjust' is that there are barriers put in place *intentionally* preventing certain individuals from achieving certain levels of wealth/income. I assume he's not stupid enough to be considering unintentional barriers as "unjust". Some people are born ugly and there's no way around it.

So, assuming he only means "unjust" to be intentionally placed barriers to prevent others from succeeding, I cannot begin to imagine how ignorant and/or dishonest one has to be to make this statement.

Furthermore, my question to him would be "unjust compared to what?"

natedogg

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
So, assuming he only means "unjust" to be intentionally placed barriers to prevent others from succeeding, I cannot begin to imagine how ignorant and/or dishonest one has to be to make this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society. The most important item that parents in any society try to buy is a head start for their children. And the wealthier they are, the bigger the head start. Societies that promise equality of opportunity thus cannot afford to allow inequality of outcomes to become too great.


[/ QUOTE ]

Full article

How ignorant or dishonest is it to present a statement out of context?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society. The most important item that parents in any society try to buy is a head start for their children. And the wealthier they are, the bigger the head start. Societies that promise equality of opportunity thus cannot afford to allow inequality of outcomes to become too great.


[/ QUOTE ]

Full article

How ignorant or dishonest is it to present a statement out of context?


[/ QUOTE ]

The extra copy doesn't clarify anything beyond the first sentence. Do you want to illuminate us?

natedogg

[bluesbassman]

This statement is similar to comments recently made by the Counterfeiter-in-Chief (i.e. Fed Chairman) Bernanke:

Bernanke business news story

Sigh. It seems as though it is becoming more fashionable among some economists to resurrect that old leftist bugaboo of "class" inequality.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
(if he had taken more philosophy he'd understand the importance of semantics here). I'll assume that what he means by "unequal" is "people with unequal amounts of wealth/income" and what he means by 'unjust' is that there are barriers put in place *intentionally* preventing certain individuals from achieving certain levels of wealth/income

[/ QUOTE ] If you had taken more philosophy, you wouldn't just assume a meaning of the word justice.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume he's not stupid enough to be considering unintentional barriers as "unjust". Some people are born ugly and there's no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ] If you had taken more philosophy, you would know that by far the most influential theory of justice in the west in the last 200 years is John Rawls's theory, which considers inequalities in goods (e.g. income) that are caused by luck in the natural and social lottery e.g. personal appearance differences to be unjust unless those inequalities benefit the worst off group, and considers ALL inequalities in opportunity and "basic" liberties to be unjust. The fact that somebody is ugly and another not isn't unjust, what is unjust is that one person has more goods and opportunitiy than the other, and that our social system is set up in a way that makes this happen.

Just because Rawls's theory is the most influential doesn't make it true; however, my point is simply that comments like the one you are discussing by Delong are not caused by ignorance of philosophy.

You also may not have winded up calling somebody stupid just because they have different moral intuitions than you do.

[lehighguy]

So if someone is smart, and society rewards him handsomely for using that intelligence to make live better, this is unjust?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone is smart, and society rewards him handsomely for using that intelligence to make live better, this is unjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone is smart yet society stops him from benefiting from his natural aptitude is that unjust?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

If someone is smart yet society stops him from benefiting from his natural aptitude is that unjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Duh. Who would argue otherwise?

natedogg

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if someone is smart, and society rewards him handsomely for using that intelligence to make live better, this is unjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone is smart yet society stops him from benefiting from his natural aptitude is that unjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make if he's smart or not?