ATAR Notes: Forum
Administration => Site Discussion => Suggestions => Topic started by: brendan on February 12, 2008, 02:20:16 pm
-
"It should be clear by now that the VCE system, unfortunately, is troubled by the problem of inequality between students from differing socio-economic areas of society. The vast gap separating the top and bottom schools ensures that there are able, willing and motivated students who are being left behind, struggling at the bottom."
Why is inequality a problem?
-
Inequality in opportunites, resources, etc. which translates into inequality in final marks. Btw, brendan, this is exactly what I mean - arguing for the sake of arguing.
-
Inequality in opportunites, resources, etc. which translates into inequality in final marks. Btw, brendan, this is exactly what I mean - arguing for the sake of arguing.
Dude it was a question. Inequality isn't the problem its mediocre schools. You could very well increase equality by making everyone equally stupid. Yet who would say that is desireable? If there were some government policy that would reduce the resources of those at the top without affecting the resources of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch? If you were aiming at reducing inequality you would.
-
Yeah, a loaded question. Nice.
-
Yeah, a loaded question. Nice.
"Why is inequality a problem" is a loaded question? haha. It was you that said "problem of inequality" not me. I just asked why is it a problem.
-
Extremely loaded. You were just about ready to launch into your libertarian, free market spiel. :-/ Brendan, my advice to you is to pick your battles. You may not agree with everything but that doesn't mean that everything needs a battle. You should pick them wisely, otherwise you just sound belligerent.
-
Let's summarise:
You said "the problem of inequality"
I asked: "Why is inequality a problem?"
Then you say: "Extremely loaded. You were just about ready to launch into your libertarian, free market spiel. :-/ Brendan, my advice to you is to pick your battles. You may not agree with everything but that doesn't mean that everything needs a battle. You should pick them wisely, otherwise you just sound belligerent."
-
You think I don't know where that was headed? You've argued about this so many times in the forum, in IRC, on MSN and that's the path you take every time. If I didn't impugn the motives behind your question there, that's exactly what would have happened.
But, in the interests of letting this thread die. You win, Brendan. :) I don't know exactly what you've won or what for but... you have persuaded me. :D
EDIT: Oh nice edit there, Brendan... making your argument after this thread. See? Argument. Every time you post brendan, it's in an argument. See if that doesn't say something about you.
-
Inequality isn't the problem - the problem is the low standard set by public schools. Our goal is to lift standards all across the board, as these resources are accessible by all.
-
I'm wondering why a separate thread was needed given that enwiabe set up a thread specifically for "VCE notes constructive criticism".
-
How can you be against "libertarian, free market spiel" as you call it when the introduction message mentions VCE Notes as the "free market solution"?
I don't understand why you are so quick to defend yourself when the question is so tame.
-
It's not being 'against' it at all. I'm just saying that that would have been the spiel into which he'd have launched as soon as I'd answered the question in a manner that went against the ideal. As I said, it was a LOADED question indicative of his wanting to start that argument.
-
There's nothing wrong with saying that their is inequality in education and I know what Dan is saying. He's just saying that this site should be free to everyone to access regardless of socio-economic background and I applaud him for the idea.
-
I applaud the idea but the goal is not to reduce inequality - the goal is to have resources available for as many people as possible. That is what brendan was getting at, and that is all there is. He was not trying to start an argument. You shouldn't jump to conclusions. It's hardly "libertarian." It's just rational to point out that our goal is to improve everybody, rather than say we are trying to squish the top and bottom tiers together.
-
Actually the primary goal *is* to reduce inequality. The inequality is between resources and opportunities. This site gives EVERYBODY A+ resources as opposed to just private schools in the past. That, sir, is bridging the inequality gap. This site would not help very many private schoolers, I've gotta say. I hardly needed any help on BoS or any extra notes outside of school simply because my own school provided them bountifully. Unfortunately, Joe Bloggs from Wangaratta didn't get what I had, and this site rectifies that.
-
Yeah, I thought the point was to help people who don't get the resources that other people do, thereby increasing the overall standard of VCE students and ensuring that socio-economic status doesn't give some kids an artificial advantage over others. It's ambitious, but I very much like the idea.
Oh also, I'm always saying this, but public schools aren't all bad. Only some are. It's just that they don't have nearly the same budget as private school do to access these kinds of resources. They aren't necessarily required for a good score, but they do make the pursuit of getting a good score easier.
-
But the goal is not to reduce inequality per se. It is to help people who can benefit from us. Reducing inequality can also be achieved by fucking up the ones at the upper tier. We should lose our obsession with closing the inequality gap. It's not the primary goal - it is a consequence of what we can achieve.
-
LOL.
So much for letting the argument die, why does it bother everyone so much?
Everyone makes mistakes.
-
Tyler Cowen,a professor of economics at George Mason University said it best in an op-ed in the NYT:
"The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such. Many of the rich have made the mistake of viewing their lives as a game of relative status. So why should economists promote this same zero-sum worldview? Yes, there are corporate scandals, but it remains the case that most American wealth today is produced rather than taken from other people.
What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated."
-
Yeah, ok Brendan ::) this isn't the politics forum. I think we could all interpret eniwabe's words; he meant pushing the bottom bar up rather than lowering the top one.
Actually the primary goal *is* to reduce inequality. The inequality is between resources and opportunities. This site gives EVERYBODY A+ resources as opposed to just private schools in the past. That, sir, is bridging the inequality gap. This site would not help very many private schoolers, I've gotta say. I hardly needed any help on BoS or any extra notes outside of school simply because my own school provided them bountifully. Unfortunately, Joe Bloggs from Wangaratta didn't get what I had, and this site rectifies that.
Really? I was just about to recommend saying something to the effect that "private schoolers can also benefit greatly from vcenotes." Many are sub-standard in some areas [and even if they aren't they might learn something new here and get extra help if their teachers can't always provide it] They could also benefit from the forum -how many times have we talked about this site having a popluation "skewed upwards" in terms of ability. Not contradicting you, but did you not meet Ahmad here and did his posts not enhance your marks, or appreciation of some subjects?
Also I agree with Eriny that you over-generalise about public schools being under-equipped to help their students. My old [state, rural] school, BSSC, was brilliant for students doing the Asian 5, although it lacked in other areas.
-
Interesting discussion point guys :)
I agree with brendan and coblin's points.
-
Interesting discussion point guys :)
I agree with brendan and coblin's points.
yay booo to enwiabe =p
-
Actually the primary goal *is* to reduce inequality. The inequality is between resources and opportunities. This site gives EVERYBODY A+ resources as opposed to just private schools in the past. That, sir, is bridging the inequality gap. This site would not help very many private schoolers, I've gotta say. I hardly needed any help on BoS or any extra notes outside of school simply because my own school provided them bountifully.
I agree. Those who attend private schools usually have access to study notes such as those offered on this site. I was under the impression that the aim was to give access to these kind of educational resources to all VCE students, thereby serving to bridge this inequality gap, at least to some extent. Students should not be disadvantaged by differences in their socio-economic backgrounds. Thus, this form of multifarious inequality is a problem.
By the way, surely the creator of the site knows what the primary goal of the site was and is.
-
The point is that inequality is not the fundamental issue. We simply want to raise the lower bar (consequentially reducing inequality), but of course we should be no less motivated if our service rose the upper bar substantially moreso than the lower bar. As long as we provide a service that mutually benefits the consumers and providers, there is no reason why we shouldn't be proud of it.
-
That's a favourable outcome of the site, coblin. But that's not the one I'd be most proud of. The one I'd be most proud of is the one that says, "Public non-selective school enters the top 3!" or something to that effect.
-
That's a favourable outcome of the site, coblin. But that's not the one I'd be most proud of. The one I'd be most proud of is the one that says, "Public non-selective school enters the top 3!" or something to that effect.
it might happen but i wouldn't hold my breath
-
The problem of inequality should be the fundamental issue. Of course, universally raising the standard of education is desirable; however, individuals should have equal access to educational resources, as much as is possible. This, specifically, is the problem of inequality being referred to, as enwiabe repeatedly mentions, not the inequality in educational standards.
-
Mmhmm. :-/ Arguments are often created out of nothing on these forums.
-
individuals should have equal access to educational resources, as much as is possible.
If there were some government policy that would reduce the resources of those at the top without affecting the resources of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch? If you were aiming at reducing inequality in resources you would, yet who would say that is desirable?
-
Brendan, you're being a nonce. It's providing the right means to the end. You're putting words in both neophyte's mouth and my own. Of course we wouldn't want that. Instead, we'd want to aim to make those A+ resources free so everyone could access them, not JUST students of elite private schools.
-
You're putting words in both neophyte's mouth and my own.
What are you talking about? I quoted him.
individuals should have equal access to educational resources, as much as is possible.
that's what he said
-
Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.
-
Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.
No I didn't say that.
Of course we wouldn't want that.
If you don't want that then you shouldn't be aiming for reducing inequality in resources. Because if you were aiming for reducing inequality in resources then by definition you would flip that switch. Hence, you yourself find it repugnant to aim for reducing inequality in resources. So instead you should be aiming to lift the resources of those at the bottom.
-
Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.
No I didn't say that.
Brendan, you enjoy arguing way too much. I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society:
Those who attend private schools usually have access to study notes such as those offered on this site. I was under the impression that the aim was to give access to these kind of educational resources to all VCE students, thereby serving to bridge this inequality gap, at least to some extent.
By the way, surely the creator of the site knows what the primary goal of the site was and is.
Where "those offered on this site" are of high quality.
Surely, you could have deduced this.
-
"I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society"
Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.
-
If you don't want that then you shouldn't be aiming for reducing inequality in resources. Because if you were aiming for reducing inequality in resources then by definition you would flip that switch. Hence, you yourself find it repugnant to aim for reducing inequality in resources. So instead you should be aiming to lift the resources of those at the bottom.
That is possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard you say. There are MANY WAYS of achieving that. ONE WAY is your bullshit way that's been designed to attack me for reasons undefined. The OTHER is my way where instead of reducing other students' access, you simply provide what the rich kids have access to for free.
TWO WAYS. Also, your way promotes inequality. The inequality between generations. Why should one generation have access to better notes than another? That's also against VN's mission statement. We're trying here to improve the notes with age, not decrease them. Fail argument has failed.
-
This whole argument is about "means to an end".
You are for reducing global warming. Would you be for reducing global warming if it involved destroying America so that it stopped outputting so much greenhouse gas? That's the easiest way of doing it! Therefore you're for killing Americans!
THAT'S YOU. That's your shitty argument.
-
"I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society"
Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.
Rarely do I come across an argument so logically flawed.
Enwiabe explains.
-
Rarely do I come across an argument so logically flawed.
It's not logically flawed. It is saying that if you support equality as a principle to uphold, then that proposal is attractive to the equality-minded individual. The point is that the fundamental goal is not to achieve equality per se, but it is to help improve the lower ranks.
It's not an attack on you, enwiabe, it's an attack on the perception held by many that equality is a noble value to uphold (well, I can only speak for myself). When politicians do things in the name of equality, you should be careful to think about how equality is being achieved: the destructive way or the constructive way.
-
You said inequality itself was a problem:
"the problem of inequality"
"The vast gap separating the top and bottom"
I asked: "If there were some government policy that would reduce the resources of those at the top without affecting the resources of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch?"
Flipping that switch by definition would "close the gap" and would reduce inequality in resources.
Yet who would say that is desirable? No one. Not even you. You yourself have found it repugnant. Hence, you have contradicted yourself. The two positions are not consistent.
If you find flipping that switch repugnant, then therefore inequality itself is not the problem.
-
Brendan: Inequality is the problem, and so is the "destructive way" of reconciling it.
There is no contradiction.
Coblin: I admire your attempt at a kind of impartial sort of stance but brendan clearly stated:
Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.
I.e "would"... that my opposition to inequality automatically translates into my decision to follow the "destructive way". This is simply not the case.
-
There's a thing called logic Brendan.
The argument of the correct means to an end applies here. Of COURSE I wouldn't want it to happen if it involved impinging on the educational quality of others.
Just like if you are for global warming reduction, you would only want it to happen if it didn't impinge on the safety/wellbeing of others.
Your argument is logically flawed and simply adds more proof that you argue for the sake of arguing. This is the most bullshit thing I've ever seen. It is the proverbial equivalent to arguing about two flies running up a wall. You've simply got no idea about picking your battles. This was the most stupid semantics game I've ever seen. Congratulations, Brendan, you made me lower myself down to this position where I've actually got to defend MY primary objective with this website. :-/ You're a real winner.
-
Wanting more equality is not necessarily expressing any kind of disdain for those in the higher end. The pursuit of equality doesn't necessarily burden anyone, for example, implementing this notes system doesn't hurt anyone at all at the top end, there is no "switch flipping" evident. There will always be some inequality, no doubt, it's just about erradicating unfair reasons for this inequality such as the unavailability of quality resources. Note that equality of resources doesn't mean that everyone is equally as intelligent, because that's something that we can't and possibly shouldn't be able to influence. It gives everyone access to the same, and does not take access from anyone away. It means that those would would be on the lower end have a better chance of being on the higher end, given the same advantages as those who go to "rich" schools.
-
It means that your primary objective is not to reduce inequality, but it is to help those who suffer the burden of low standards. The consequence is that it reduces inequality, but that is not your principle or goal - the latter implies the switch solution is a good idea.
-
The more you repeat that you find flipping that switch repugnant, the more you prove the point that inequality itself is not the problem.
Inequality is the problem
Let's run with that.
(1) Inequality itself is the problem: "the problem of inequality", "The vast gap separating the top and bottom"
Flipping that switch reduces inequality.
By (1), you should flip that switch.
But you've stated that you don't want to flip that switch even though it reduces inequality.
Hence inequality itself is not the problem.
Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University said it best:
"The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such. Many of the rich have made the mistake of viewing their lives as a game of relative status...
What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated."
-
Coblin, the inequality we've been referring to is that which regards the access to educational resources and, hence, opportunity.
Terrorism is a problem. One way - the "destructive way" - is to use nuclear weapons against all countries who harbour terrorists. Problem eliminated. Obviously, this course of action is not plausible or desired. Yet terrorism is still a problem.
Let us be hypothetical, then. Consider inequality a problem for a moment. There are constructive and destructive means to bring about equality, such as those aforementioned. Just because we reject the destructive means does not detract from the consideration that inequality is a problem. I thus request that you consider the applications of your position.
Should all people have equal rights? This question, at least in the democratic world, seems to have drawn a common answer: Yes.
Should all VCE students have equal access to educational resources?
Equal rights and opportunity, the fundamental theme upon which we have been drawing, is what is being sought. Yes, Brendan, I could cite many sources, from different eras, backgrounds and beliefs - individuals of academic and social standing - who would support this view.
"It means that your primary objective is not to reduce inequality, but it is to help those who suffer the burden of low standards. The consequence is that it reduces inequality, but that is not your principle or goal - the latter implies the switch solution is a good idea."
We have a goal, yes, but that does not automatically assume that all means towards this goal are justifiable or desired.
You and brendan seem to be of the opinion that if you have a goal that it must be realised at all moral and social costs, that the ends justifies the means. Not everyone is. Perhaps our diverging opinions can be attributed to fundamentally disparate philosophies.
Thankyou, Brendan, for quoting Tyler Cowen, the foremost expert on everything: "What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms". In an environment where each individual has equal opportunity (as is being suggested), the individual can then pursue academic excellence, and can then succeed according to his/her own merit. I would not advocate that some should be restricted so that success is measured in equal doses. That is not -and has never been - the cause of our espousal.
I think Eriny has posited the situation best in a calm, well-considered and rational fashion, and should accordingly be credited.
-
this thread is a pointless bloodbath.
i do agree with brendan when he says that if you are indeed an advocate for "equality", you should take both the constructive and destructive methods for fear of contradiction. by supporting equality, you would not only be in favour of raising the standard of the lower tiers, but also flipping the switch for the sake of making everyone equal. if you support the idea of "equality", it is logical that you should be prepared to use both means of acquiring it.
having said that, nothing is to be gained by arguing over this because "flipping the switch" was clearly not (and hopefully will not be) enwiabe's intention. to me it looks like it was purely a poorly worded reference to "equality", and brendan appears to be setting up a (excuse me if i'm wrong) straw man or trying to ping enwiabe on semantics.
basically, everyone is fighting over a non-existent intention - so everyone, just calm down.
-
brendan appears to be setting up a (excuse me if i'm wrong) straw man
nup a straw-man is to ascribe to a person a position that is not implied from his comments.
what i was doing was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum i.e. similar to proof by contradiction
i took his principle and showed him a logical implication.
it's a technique that is used quite often. Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw based his whole paper on it: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-times-magazine-draws-attention-to-my.html
He showed that if you followed certain principles that other Economists were applying (the theory of optimal taxation) that one logical implication is that you should have a tax on height.
-
Terrorism is a problem. One way - the "destructive way" - is to use nuclear weapons against all countries who harbour terrorists.
No, that shows that it is the loss of human life itself that is the problem. That the primary objective is to minimize loss to human life. You won't use nuclear weapons because it will probably cause more loss to human life than it will prevent.
Like I said, the more you repeat that you find flipping that switch repugnant, the more you prove the point that inequality itself is not the problem.
Suppose you had:
society A where there is complete equality of resources;
society B where there is an inequality in resources but all people in society B have more resources than people in society A
which society is preferable?
If inequality itself is a problem, if the "vast gap between top and bottom" is the problem, then according to that proposition you must pick society A.
Like Cowen, I don't view inequality itself to be a problem, because inequality only concerns itself with the "gap between top and bottom". As Cowen said: "What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms."
-
Yeah. I don't see why you're trying to make the distinction between equality of outcomes and equality of opportunities, because either way, the goal is to lift standards - not to close a gap. We should simply say that we are trying to produce notes that are freely accessible by all students. The consequence may be equality of opportunities, but that is not the principle.
-
Terrorism is a problem. One way - the "destructive way" - is to use nuclear weapons against all countries who harbour terrorists.
No, that shows that it is the loss of human life itself that is the problem. That the primary objective is to minimize loss to human life. You won't use nuclear weapons because it will probably cause more loss to human life than it will prevent.
Are you saying terrorism is not a problem?
Just because there is a problem does not mean one must pursue a destructive solution, an argument we've repeatedly submitted.
Coblin, there can still be a difference in standards when there is an equality of opportunity. We just want a level playing field.
Nevertheless, I agree that this thread borders on irrelevancy, given the sites intentions. Perhaps opinions here won't or even cannot be influenced by one another's.
-
Also, if the principle is to stop terrorism, then using nuclear weapons on countries that harbour terrorists is a solution - whether you use it or not is about how you weigh up the costs and benefits of it compared to other solutions. The United States have not ruled out nuclear strikes on Iran, and some proponents of equality even think flipping the switch is a good idea.
This is why we should be clear about what our goals are.
Coblin, there can still be a difference in standards when there is an equality of opportunity. We just want a level playing field.
When I used "standards," it was changing in reference from outcomes to opportunities (whether you meant one or the other).
-
Terrorism is a problem. One way - the "destructive way" - is to use nuclear weapons against all countries who harbour terrorists.
No, that shows that it is the loss of human life itself that is the problem. That the primary objective is to minimize loss to human life. You won't use nuclear weapons because it will probably cause more loss to human life than it will prevent.
Are you saying terrorism is not a problem?
Just because there is a problem does not mean one must pursue a destructive solution, an argument we've repeatedly submitted.
Coblin, there can still be a difference in standards when there is an equality of opportunity. We just want a level playing field.
Nevertheless, I agree that this thread borders on irrelevancy, given the sites intentions. Perhaps opinions here won't or even cannot be influenced by one another's.
what brendan has implied, that nuclear weapons (even though it will solve the terrorism problem) is in conflict with our value of life, and the problem is that we cannot accept death of innocents simply because of proximity of terrorist, brendan has pointed out what the problem underlying that statement was, and did not say anything about not acknowledging terrorism as a problem.
and about the level playing field, if you are unwilling to take away resources from the top of the spectrum, that implies you value resources more than equality itself, and hence the reality of this site is to provide resources, not to create equality. The access of these resources (which is open) does not imply the standardisation of performance of students from a broad spectrum (which is what equality brings, a level playing field where people with equal ability perform the same), it just means they'd have more resources, and the standard of provision of education will be somewhat improved.
with this in mind, the problem we're tackling here is not inequality, it's a lack of quality resources that optimizes performance.
-
Yes, it will make standards higher, but that's not the actual goal, the goal is to ensure that all people have access to the means in which these higher standards can be more easily obtained by a large group of people. See, equality can actually make things better for everybody, it does not mean that those on the upper must suffer. You can campaign for equality with a mind towards increasing average standars, rather than lowering them. For example, if you believe in equal rights, it's absurd to suggest that this goal is best achieved by taking rights away from those who have them - it doesn't solve anything. And yet, equality is precisely the target.
-
Why doesn't anyone understand that if your goal is to increase equality, then this means you think flipping the switch has some merit? It might not be the chosen solution (because you might find that improving the lower end is more attractive - however, that is a different value, not the value of equality).
Equality is not the target. If it were, then if we had no way to bring up the lower class, we would resort to destroying the upper class.
-
My god...4 pages later and this dribble still hasn't stopped!
And someone managed to associate nukes with the VN front page!
-
Why doesn't anyone understand that if your goal is to increase equality, then this means you think flipping the switch has some merit? It might not be the chosen solution (because you might find that improving the lower end is more attractive - however, that is a different value, not the value of equality).
Equality is not the target. If it were, then if we had no way to bring up the lower class, we would resort to destroying the upper class.
People who believe in equality aren't necessarily extremists who believe in equality at all costs. In the same way that most people who believe in freedom believe that there should be some restrictions on that freedom (laws, for example).
-
I am not saying that any of you believe in "equality at all costs," I am pointing out that the principle is not to maximize equality. I think your principle is to help the lower sections of society - we don't want the other side of equality, not at all.
-
I am not saying that any of you believe in "equality at all costs," I am pointing out that the principle is not to maximize equality. I think your principle is to help the lower sections of society - we don't want the other side of equality, not at all.
I think the issue can summarised as such:
There are those who believe (myself included) that equality is the goal while maintaining that some means of realising that goal - destructive means - should be totally dismissed. This follows from the notion that such means undermine the spirit of that goal, seeing as we want everyone to equally enjoy quality resources.
Conversely, there are others who maintain that as there is an alternative and of course undesirable means to realising this goal it should not be the goal at all. Consequently, these individuals suggest, as Coblin has put it, that the principle goal should be "to help the lower sections of society".
It is now absolutely clear that we have failed to convince each other of the merit of the other's argument.
I thus suggest that this discussion be terminated.
-
I'm not saying that's what the principal goal should be. I am saying that if you like the idea of equality achieved only by constructive means, then your goal is to help the lower sections of society.
If your goal is to let everyone equally enjoy quality (don't know why you have this word emphasized) resources, then that is not about equality at all, it's just about offering a service to people who want to sign up.
-
I'm not saying that's what the principal goal should be. I am saying that if you like the idea of equality achieved only by constructive means, then your goal is to help the lower sections of society.
I am getting weary of being told what my goal is, especially in view of my repeated differentiation between ends and means. If I have misunderstood yours then discuss that.
Inequality isn't the problem - the problem is the low standard set by public schools. Our goal is to lift standards all across the board, as these resources are accessible by all.
Ultimately, though, it sounds like you essentially want the same thing: "resources [that] are accessible by all". I call this a desire for equality (in resources and opportunity), you can call it whatever you want.
If your goal is to let everyone equally enjoy quality (don't know why you have this word emphasized) resources, then that is not about equality at all, it's just about offering a service to people who want to sign up.
Is equal rights no longer about equality, then, but rather a service offered to those who want to "sign up"?
I did not want to continue this discussion, given its counterproductivity, but your persistence left me little recourse. Moreover, I regret engaging in it to begin with in light of the argumentative styles I'm forced to contend with.
-
Just to let you know, this argument is purely semantic, and it is not an attack on anyone's positions. It is just to point out the misleading nature of the term "equality." I am trying to persuade you that you shouldn't call it that, that's all.
You're not desiring equality - because if you desired equality you would desire the destruction of the top end if you had only the option between a destructive mean or living with inequality. This shows that equality is not your goal, it is just a consequence of what your actual goal is - which is to create resources that are more accessible than before.
-
Lovely, reiterating previous points without addressing the opposing ones repeatedly being submitted.
Perhaps this is a case of acknowledging we have different opinions and moving forward.
Or perhaps you would like to engage in the mutual recognition of that which we ultimately desire - a "constructive form of equality".
-
Lovely, reiterating previous points without addressing the opposing ones repeatedly being submitted.
Perhaps this is a case of acknowledging we have different opinions and moving forward.
Or perhaps you would like to engage in the mutual recognition of that which we ultimately desire - a "constructive form of equality".
I assume the first sentence is directed to Brendan, you didn't answer that. I am suggesting that we have the same intentions, but my contention is that you are just saying them wrong.
-
Yes, I have gathered your contention.
-
Suppose you had:
society A where there is complete equality of resources;
society B where there is an inequality in resources but all people in society B have more resources than people in society A
Which society is preferable? This is an important question. You only have the choice of those two.
-
The fact that you have repeatedly proposed that question signifies your unwilingness to consider what has been advocated.
Neither Society A or B has been advocated. Which is preferable is a worthy matter for consideration, but not relevant to the goal which has been submitted, explained and explained again.
If you want my explanations read previous posts.
NB Your question is not being ignored, I will consider it in its moral, social and philosophical contexts and implications.
-
I will consider it in its moral, social and philosophical contexts and implications.
Good then answer it. Which one is more desirable?
Neither Society A or B has been advocated.
I didn't exactly advocate terrorism either did I:
Terrorism is a problem.
Are you saying terrorism is not a problem?
"constructive form of equality".
You are getting closer to acknowledging a better social welfare objective, but not quite there yet. In any case, i am pleased that you have you have moved away from your original position of:
inequality is a problem.
-
I maintain inequality as a problem in the context of this argument.
I responded to your comment on my analogy, which led to that possible conclusion, one which I wanted to have confirmed or denied.
"Better" by your opinion. And considering the manner with which that opinion is being conveyed I am increasingly thinking less of it. I do not like your tone.
I will answer if and when I come to my own conclusion and if and when I wish to share that conclusion with you.
-
Suppose you had:
society A where there is complete equality of resources;
society B where there is an inequality in resources but all people in society B have more resources than people in society A
Which society is preferable? This is an important question. You only have the choice of those two.
It would be essential to know the *extent* of the inequality in society B before answering that question
-
No bubble sunglasses, I didn't specify that because it isn't necessary to elicit the principle.
I will answer if and when I come to my own conclusion and if and when I wish to share that conclusion with you.
.
The fact that you have not even answered it, and then tried use a classic political dodge in order to avoid answering the question, says a lot in itself.
-
I think society B is more desirable. However, society B would be undesirable if those who had fewer resources were not given the opportunity to gain more resources. Are 5 pages necessary for an ostensible misunderstanding of what "equality" actually means?
-
Is equal opportunity no longer considered an ideal?
I wonder, if the general public was asked whether or not it valued equal opportunity how it would respond. The more I consider this debate the more I view it as obscure. Only in such an environment would people actually oppose equal opportunity and thus not view inequality as a problem.
Brendan, your question is flawed because however I answer you'll think you'll have material against my arguments, manipulate my words and act accordingly. You set it up as such - in absolute terms. jamesdrv and bubble sunglasses have cited two of the many flaws of the question. I therefore have no current intention of sharing my thoughts with you on this matter. But much more importantly, it is of no relevance to this discussion, as what is being advocated is equality in opportunity, which inherently has positive connotations. I have already been through this; it is as if I'm going around in a circle.
The fact that you have not even answered it, and then tried use a classic political dodge in order to avoid answering the question, says a lot in itself.
By that token, you could conceivably be guilty of hypocrisy. You have failed to answer several of my questions. Do not fret, I'm not implying that I want you to; I am however asking you to reconsider attempting to pressure me into playing your little games.
-
Equality of opportunity has the same shortcomings as equality of outcomes. It still implies that destroying the opportunities of the rich is a solution.
The ultimate point that I am trying to drive home is that "equality" is not a noble principle to uphold. Only the constructive side of equality makes sense, and in that case, your principle becomes one directed to improve the opportunities of the poor, rather than to decrease inequality. Like I've said before, decreased inequality is only the consequence, not the goal. It's an important distinction.
-
Equality of opportunity has the same shortcomings as equality of outcomes. It still implies that destroying the opportunities of the rich is a solution.
The ultimate point that I am trying to drive home is that "equality" is not a noble principle to uphold. Only the constructive side of equality makes sense, and in that case, your principle becomes one directed to improve the opportunities of the poor, rather than to decrease inequality. Like I've said before, decreased inequality is only the consequence, not the goal. It's an important distinction.
I recognise your point as valid. Nonetheless I believe the notion "that destroying the opportunities of the rich is a solution" rests on the premise that the ends justifies the means. This is a valid philosophical view. However, concomitantly one must recognise that not everyone is of this view and, subsequently, these individuals are in a position to call for equal opportunity. This is a distinction I have already tried to make:
"... the opinion that if you have a goal that it must be realised at all moral and social costs, that the ends justifies the means. Not everyone is. Perhaps our diverging opinions can be attributed to fundamentally disparate philosophies."
-
No, what you are doing now is upholding the principle of maximising society's benefit. It has nothing to do with equality, because we know that you will not go as far as to destroy portions of society to achieve it.
I guess my point can be better seen if some natural disaster took away all the rich people's money (down to the level of everyone else): would you say "oh well, at least everyone is more equal now"? If so, then you do believe equality is a principle to be upheld. If not, then you do not care for equality, you just care for improving the welfare of [insert some section of society here - it could also be "everyone"] (which ultimately might close the inequality gap, but you're not motivated to pursue equality, per se).
-
Nonetheless I believe the notion "that destroying the opportunities of the rich is a solution" rests on the premise that the ends justifies the means.
This statement itself rests on the premise that equality is and end, that it is an end that is justifiable, and this exact property is the argument here, not how equality can be reached, but whether equality is itself desirable (when there clearly are other options)
reaching equality can take two extremes, one where everyone improves to the highest class, and one where everyone reduces to the lowest class
however, your "equality" is an equal provision of resources to all, it does not reach equality, but it does raise the general standard. This is different from equality itself, and it does not directly aim at reaching equality, as users from higher and lower class can access this resource.
This equal provision has been deemed by this community, even though it is not equality. If by some means a criteria was set up to reach "constructive equality", where the lower class has better access of resources than the higher class, I am sure there will be disapprovement from many members, even though this is reaching equality at its best.
You are using much philosophy, maybe you should also remember how important semantics and definitions are.
-
Thankyou for your points, Coblin. At the same time one must bear in mind that the equality of opportunity being sought is desired and hence can be a principle, my principle at least.
Mao, The equality I've been discussing is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. An environment of equal opportunity allows everyone to pursue their own outcomes. Consequently, the very fact that users from higher and lower class can access this resource means they have equal opportunity, well at least in this instance. In my opinion, equality of opportunity should be desired, allowing for a level playing field (not only about raising the general standard or maximising society's benefit). As has been outlined, there are two ways of doing that 1 reducing everyone to lesser access to resources 2 raising everyone to greater access to resources. In this context, whereby the site is giving all students access to more resources, equal opportunity can be in part realised and the means with which that equal opportunity is being realised is clear (2). Subsequently, I embrace enwiabe's chosen goal.
I appreciate your opinion and the controlled, well-considered manner with which you expressed it.
-
Thankyou for your points, Coblin. At the same time one must bear in mind that the equality of opportunity being sought is desired and hence can be a principle, my principle at least.
Then you must admit that if there was some natural disaster that took away opportunities from those who are rich in opportunity (consequentially achieving equality of opportunity), there was some marginal benefit from it, in that it achieved equality (despite that there are marginal costs).
-
While the outcome might be equal opportunity, I do not approve of the way it was achieved. Perhaps there is marginal benefit, but not marginal costs.
Also, the wealth being taken away might be an outcome of those wealthy seizing an opportunity available to all, which would make it a matter of equalising outcomes not opportunity, which is not being advocated. The whole matter is trivial.
-
Also, the wealth being taken away might be an outcome of those wealthy seizing an opportunity available to all, which would make it a matter of equalising outcomes not opportunity, which is not being advocated. The whole matter is trivial.
What wealth being taken away? I proposed a natural disaster which removed opportunities, not wealth.
How can you deny that there are marginal costs involved with removing opportunities (even if it's from the rich)? The only way I see your principle making sense, is if you believe that the (perceived) marginal benefit of equality does not outweigh the marginal cost of destroying opportunities from the rich.
-
Sorry I should have been more clear. I was saying there were costs but they were more than marginal.
What wealth being taken away? I proposed a natural disaster which removed opportunities, not wealth.
You said earlier "I guess my point can be better seen if some natural disaster took away all the rich people's money (down to the level of everyone else)" - rich people's money = wealth?
-
I used the same example to show that equality in opportunities is also a fallible principle. The goal is to improve opportunities, not necessarily to make them equal (but that may be the consequence). In fact, given that most things in the world have diminishing returns, it is easier to improve the opportunities of those lacking in opportunities. I am for the improvement of opportunities, but I am not necessarily for the equality of opportunities.
I am against equality of opportunities as a principle, because it implies that even if equality of opportunities are achieved by confiscating opportunity from the opportune, that there is some gain to society. I do not believe in that viewpoint. But, even though I am against it as a principle, I am not necessarily against it as an outcome. I am not motivated by equality of opportunities, I am motivated by the improvement of opportunities.
When I said marginal costs, I meant the increase in costs as a result of that event. I did not refer to a cost that is marginal (small), but I meant the economic meaning of the term.
-
If I may weigh into this debate,
Personally, I would value equality of oppurtunity as a positive value when applied to a competitive system such as the VCE (or indeed society as a whole), however, this does not imply that inequality of oppurtunity is the only societal problem, rather that it is a problem. Thus, while reducing the oppurtunities of the wealthy would allow for some positive benefits in that it would even the playing field, benefiting those who previously suffered from a lack of opportunity, the ends would not justify the means in this case as while such as a solution would solve the problem of inequality it would also reduce the educational standards of the wealthy and should therefore not be undertaken.
As neophyte has been saying, to state that inequality is a problem does not justify all solutions which could conceivably exarcerbate or create other problems.
-
Suppose you had:
society A where there is complete equality of resources;
society B where there is an inequality in resources but all people in society B have more resources than people in society A
All else the same, which society is preferable to the other?
The principle that inequality in itself is a problem, and that a society with less inequality in resources is more desirable, answers this question by choosing society A (by definition A has less inequality than B)
Alternatively, if preferring A over B is rejected as repugnant, then the principle that less inequality in resources is more desirable, must in some way fail to capture our intuitive notions of social welfare.
Now suppose there were some government policy that would reduce the resources of those at the top without affecting the resources of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch? This question is essentially the asking the same thing as my question about the comparative desirability of society A & B. When 'resources' was replaced with income, many readers were not so quick to embrace the idea of flipping the switch: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,1449.0.html
Indeed, when first hearing the proposal, most people find flipping the switch repugnant. And that reaction is precisely what makes the objective of less inequality in resources so interesting. Flipping the switch or preferring A over B, follows inexorably from this objective. If the conclusion is rejected, the assumptions must be reconsidered or at least significantly amended.
Therefore, those who advocate that the objective ought to be greater equality in resources, must flip that switch (i.e. prefer A over B), or they must reject, or at least significantly amend, their social welfare objective of greater equality in resources. The choice cannot be avoided. Though that hasn't stopped some from trying:
I therefore have no current intention of sharing my thoughts with you on this matter.
Translation: "I am refusing to answer your question."
Olympic-calibre cop-out.
It should be now clear why neophyte, who said that "inequality is the problem", has refused to answer the question. The reason is because:
(1) If he picked A, then he is acknowledging a morally repugnant consequence of the principle that less inequality is more desirable; or
(2) If he picked anything but A (i.e. by picking B or saying "it depends" etc.), then he has contradicted his earlier statement that "Inequality is the problem".
the opinion that if you have a goal that it must be realised at all moral and social costs, that the ends justifies the means. Not everyone is.
reduce the educational standards of the wealthy and should therefore not be undertaken.
As neophyte has been saying, to state that inequality is a problem does not justify all solutions which could conceivably exarcerbate or create other problems.
Those two posts just proves my point again, that inequality is not the problem, but rather educational standards is the problem. It is implied from your comment that the objective is to raise educational standards not reduce inequality.
Suppose you hold that a particular state or condition is desirable. Suppose there is a particular means of achieving that. However you reject that means. Why do you reject that particular means, if not for the fact that it offends some higher principle or end that you deem more worthy?
Finally, and most important, this "means vs. end" does not even apply to the question of the comparative desirability of society A & B.
I think society B is more desirable. However, society B would be undesirable if those who had fewer resources were not given the opportunity to gain more resources.
It is implied in the question that the two societies are the same but for the two features i specified. This is to make explicit the relevant principles you are (implicitly) using to rank the desirability of different societies.
jamesdrv and bubble sunglasses have cited two of the many flaws of the question.
That's just nonsensical. A question is not a proposition, so it cannot be flawed. Secondly, jamesdrv and bubble sunglasses' very response to my question illustrates my point:
It would be essential to know the *extent* of the inequality in society B before answering that question
Society B by definition has more inequality than A. If the principle was that inequality is a problem in itself, and that reducing inequality was the objective, then clearly according to that principle, A is preferable to B.
But the very fact that you wanted to know the extent of inequality, before you would make rank the two societies, means that inequality is not a problem in itself and that there exists a higher social welfare objective that you have left unstated. Coblin illustrated this point previously:
You're not desiring equality - because if you desired equality you would desire the destruction of the top end if you had only the option between a destructive mean or living with inequality. This shows that equality is not your goal, it is just a consequence of what your actual goal is - which is to create resources that are more accessible than before.
-
While your question is interesting it nevertheless offers a one-dimensional and simplistic analysis of the situation. If the resources (in this case I am referring to oppurtunities rather than actual standards) of society B are significantly greater than those of society A then it may be preferable. However, this is not to state that society B is ideal as it still exhibits a flaw (inequality) which is nonexistent in society A. Similarly, while society A solves the problem of inequality it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of resources (meaning educational standards) and is also flawed.
Once again, while inequality is a problem it is not the ONLY problem in society as other issues such as educational standards are also important. Therefore, solving the problem of inequality of oppurtunity (which IS a problem in a competitive system) cannot always be justified if it creates problems or worsens problems such as low educational standards.
We can work to BOTH reduce inequality and raise overall standards. However, as enwiabe and neophyte were saying, in the case of vcenotes and the VCE system as a whole, this site will primarily benefit those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and it's primary goal is to increase equality in a constructive manner (which increases fairness in such a competitive system), although it should also hopefully increase overall standards (but this is not it's PRIMARY aim.
-
So you would admit that if a natural "disaster" (from my point of view) removed the opportunities of those who are rich in opportunities down to a level of opportunity of the poor, then there was a gain out of it (not necessarily overall, but there would be a "benefit" somewhere if you upheld equality of opportunity as a value)?
-
While your question is interesting it nevertheless offers a one-dimensional and simplistic analysis of the situation.
It is a question not an analysis. It's purpose is to make explicit everyone's social welfare objective that they are leaving unstated. The question was intended to be simple as possible so you guys don't come up with some cop-out answer like "oh it depends" to side step the fact that the principle of equality has some morally repugnant conclusions.
While your question is interesting it nevertheless offers a one-dimensional and simplistic analysis of the situation. If the resources (in this case I am referring to oppurtunities rather than actual standards) of society B are significantly greater than those of society A then it may be preferable.
This is not a question of which society is "perfect". This is a question of which one is better compared to the other. You are ranking their desirability so to speak.
By defnition each person in society B have greater resources than people in society A. But in society A there is complete equality, whilst in society B there is inequality. So which is better? A or B?
-
However, and this is what you both forgot.
I brought this up before and you simply chose to ignore the argument.
YOUR HYPOTHETICAL CREATES INEQUALITY BETWEEN GENERATIONS.
If you suddenly 'flip a switch' and reduce the resources of one generation, those who did VCE before them would have had an advantage. I don't see how it's fair, or even semblant of equality to deny one generation resources that another had. That is NOT equality. VCENotes is here to provide resources that continue to improve, not depreciate with time. Fundamentally, your 'switch flipping' bullshit creates an inter-generational inequality. That's not very nice. :( That's exactly what I'm trying to reduce. Top quality notes for everyone and forever.
-
So you would admit that if a natural "disaster" (from my point of view) removed the opportunities of those who are rich in opportunities down to a level of opportunity of the poor, then there was a gain out of it (not necessarily overall, but there would be a "benefit" somewhere if you upheld equality of opportunity as a value)?
Yes, their would be some benefit in a competitive system as the poor would no longer be disadvantaged by the success of the rich which had previously impacted upon their scores/success. i.e. If those with more opportunity receive the top 10% of scores, those without such opportunities would be denied the possibility of receiving an ENTER above 90 (this is obviously an extreme exaggeration of the situation as it stands), however, all would be able to achieve a score which reflects their skills/determination if the oppurtunities of the rich were lowered.
Nevertheless, such an option has greater costs than benefits as it reduces the educational standards of a proportion of society without raising the standards of others and thus exarcerbates the problem of poor educational standards.
Brendan, your options are misleading as they imply that to desire equality is to desire ONLY equality without regard to any other values. Both equality of oppurtunity and a belief in high educational standards are important values and choosing between them would require knowledge of the difference of the level of standards between society A and B. Perhaps, if this difference is extremely minimal A may be preferable as it offers a fairer arena for competition, however, such a benefit must be weighed against the similarly important principle of high educational standards.
-
No it's not misleading. It is a question. I was making the point that a less equal distribution of resources is not necessarily superior to a more equal distribution of resources.
Secondly, there is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and actually trying to make them equal. A level playing field means that the playing field is level, not that the players are level. Likewise fair competition means that people are treated equally, not that the people are equal.
-
Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again. :)
-
Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again. :)
Oh hi, thanks, I would have thought that by now you would have realized that I am not in favour of flipping the switch. Secondly, it doesn't apply to the question about society A and B.
-
Brendan is not trying to paint a picture where you can only choose one of the two. He is trying to show the absurdity of equality as a principle by showing you that a destructive means of achieving equality is not positive at all, yet equality has increased.
I have said so in my previous posts that I am for what VCE Notes is doing, but I don't believe that it is motivated by equality, instead it is motivated by an improvement of opportunities. This improvement of opportunities, yes, may very well lead to more equality, but that wasn't the reason why we were doing it - we were doing it because we could improve opportunities, regardless of whether it was the poor, middle or rich. I have also pointed out that we probably help the poor more, because these are free notes that private schools probably already have access to, but once again, that is merely a consequence of our motivation to improve opportunities for people.
N.B: All references to equality mean 'equality of opportunities' in this post.
-
Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again. :)
Oh hi, thanks, I would have thought that by now you would have realized that I am not in favour of flipping the switch. Secondly, it doesn't apply to the question about society A and B.
It's not about society A and B. And it sure as hell isn't about your personal preferences. You attacked me saying that if I was for improving equality, then I'd be for flipping the switch. That argument is the direct counter to your argument about my wanting to flip the switch in order to improve equality. Flipping the switch would markedly improve equality between schools of one generation, but schools of different generations would be unequal. Hence, by providing A+ notes for everyone, equality improves everywhere and at all times.
But really, thanks for conceding the argument. :)
-
If we take your logic then therefore those who did VCE before 2008 would have had a disadvantage because they couldn't access VCENotes. So it I don't see how it's fair, or even semblant of equality to deny one generation resources that another had. That is NOT equality.
saying that if I was for improving equality, then I'd be for flipping the switch.
your argument about my wanting to flip the switch in order to improve equality.
The two statements you described there are essentially the same. I don't see how they are a "direct counter" to each other.
Flipping the switch would markedly improve equality between schools of one generation,
I know that was my point. That's how the switch was designed.
but schools of different generations would be unequal.
Oh so this statement:
"the problem of inequality between students from differing socio-economic areas of society. The vast gap separating the top and bottom schools ensures that there are able, willing and motivated students who are being left behind, struggling at the bottom."
was referring to inequality in school resources between different generations? i c.
-
Of course my scenario doesn't talk about different generations. It's YOUR retarded scenario that presents such a problem.
-
Of course my scenario doesn't talk about different generations. It's YOUR retarded scenario that presents such a problem.
If we take your logic then therefore those who did VCE before 2008 would have had a disadvantage because they couldn't access VCENotes. So it I don't see how it's fair, or even semblant of equality to deny one generation resources that another had. That is NOT equality.
-
That's EXACTLY THE POINT. We are trying to ADvantage those of the new generation. The past generation is past. It would be ludicrous to deny resources to a new generation that the previous generation had.
I should have been more clear because you are very clearly a semantic dickhead who loves to argue for the sake of arguing.
Improving educational standards for one generation and thus creating an inequality between a more recent generation to an earlier generation, where the inequality favours the recent generation is desired. This is because the older generation could not be helped.
However, the reversed scenario is most undesirable. And that is because it COULD be helped.
Your absolutely stupid scenario presents this. It's riddled with bullet holes. VCE Notes is about improving equality, but not at the cost of the reduction of educational standards. However, that should be self-evident. And to argue that it isn't is to miss the patently obvious.
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen on this forum. And that's saying a lot.
-
Improving educational standards for one generation and thus creating an inequality between a more recent generation to an earlier generation, where the inequality favours the recent generation is desired.
Ah there we have it, so inequality after all isn't such a bad thing.
-
... No, it's only not such a bad thing when it favours a more recent generation. You're using a self-evident result that generational opportunities should improve to advance your own retarded argument.
Inequality is TERRIBLE when it's between different socio-economic areas of the same society at the same point in time.
-
Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again. :)
Brendan is not trying to paint a picture where you can only choose one of the two. He is trying to show the absurdity of equality as a principle by showing you that a destructive means of achieving equality is not positive at all, yet equality has increased.
I have said so in my previous posts that I am for what VCE Notes is doing, but I don't believe that it is motivated by equality, instead it is motivated by an improvement of opportunities. This improvement of opportunities, yes, may very well lead to more equality, but that wasn't the reason why we were doing it - we were doing it because we could improve opportunities, regardless of whether it was the poor, middle or rich. I have also pointed out that we probably help the poor more, because these are free notes that private schools probably already have access to, but once again, that is merely a consequence of our motivation to improve opportunities for people.
N.B: All references to equality mean 'equality of opportunities' in this post.
The scenario he supplied does not need to be perfect - it is only supposed to illustrate that the idea of creating equality by destructive means cannot be seen as beneficial at all. I'm not talking about the net outcome, I'm talking about the balance between benefits and costs, there are no benefits and only costs. If you truly believe in equality as a principle, then you believe that equality created by diminishing the opportunity of the upper class (even accounting for intergenerational equality) is beneficial to some extent (regardless of the costs involved). I am not saying that you would do this, or that you should do this, but it is showing you that equality as a principle does not make sense.
-
same society at the same point in time.
And that's exactly what my switch was referring to.
-
Right, but then it creates a NEW problem that the inequality between generations favours an older generation which is most undesirable.
-
Right, but then it creates a NEW problem that the inequality between generations favours an older generation which is most undesirable.
The past is the past and you cannot change it. It's like a sunk cost in Economics. It's already happened regardless of what you now choose to do. You've got to look at now and the future, because that's what you can change, and that's what matters for decision making.
-
While your question is interesting it nevertheless offers a one-dimensional and simplistic analysis of the situation. If the resources (in this case I am referring to opportunities rather than actual standards) of society B are significantly greater than those of society A then it may be preferable. However, this is not to state that society B is ideal as it still exhibits a flaw (inequality) which is nonexistent in society A. Similarly, while society A solves the problem of inequality it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of resources (meaning educational standards) and is also flawed.
Once again, while inequality is a problem it is not the ONLY problem in society as other issues such as educational standards are also important. Therefore, solving the problem of inequality of oppurtunity (which IS a problem in a competitive system) cannot always be justified if it creates problems or worsens problems such as low educational standards.
We can work to BOTH reduce inequality and raise overall standards. However, as enwiabe and neophyte were saying, in the case of vcenotes and the VCE system as a whole, this site will primarily benefit those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and it's primary goal is to increase equality in a constructive manner (which increases fairness in such a competitive system), although it should also hopefully increase overall standards (but this is not it's PRIMARY aim).
Brendan, your options are misleading as they imply that to desire equality is to desire ONLY equality without regard to any other values. Both equality of opportunity and a belief in high educational standards are important values and choosing between them would require knowledge of the difference of the level of standards between society A and B. Perhaps, if this difference is extremely minimal A may be preferable as it offers a fairer arena for competition, however, such a benefit must be weighed against the similarly important principle of high educational standards.
Seconded. I could have used my own words but it would be pointless.
Few of these points have actually been addressed, rather we face a reiteration of your earlier points. The distinction between ends and means is significant and has gone unregistered. Most importantly, you have sidestepped the issue of creating other problems using certain means. Inequality is a problem, but there are other potential problems to be avoided as absurdity explains, and explains again.
Enwiabes arguments are also credible and are also being largely misunderstood or not being recognised.
Moreover, this site is enwiabe's and telling him his goal is ridiculous. I enjoyed Coblin's attitudinal shift when he started saying this is my opinion and not your goal is this ( Reply #82 on: February 17, 2008, 04:09:29 PM). Perhaps other members should take heed.
-
I'm for equality of opportunities, I'm willing to take a certain proportion of the money of rich people make and redistribute it to poor people, but in this instance, no resources actually disappear. It's silly to suggest that making resources disappear helps equality. For instance if rich people become poor all of a sudden and the money goes nowhere, that means that businesses won't be able to run on their current scales in that the amount of money we'd be taking from from would be an unsustainable shock. Smaller businesses means less employment, leading to the people who were originally poor becoming poorer. Likewise, if I suddenly took the notes of rich people without putting these resources anywhere else, I would be actively pursuing a decline in knowledge, meaning that there would be less to draw on in the fist place, and those with money would still be at the top due to the benefits associated with going to a rich school that encourages academic rigour. The best thing in both situations is to achieve equality by maximising the resources available, through redistribution or increased provisions, not by making them redundant. That would be perverse to the goal of equality, because ultimately, that goal would not be achieved.