"inequality" in the homepage

[neophyte]

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.

[melodrama]

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]

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.

[brendan]

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."

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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).

[Mao]

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.

[Eriny]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[excal]

My god...4 pages later and this dribble still hasn't stopped!

And someone managed to associate nukes with the VN front page!

[Eriny]

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).

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.