"inequality" in the homepage

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

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".

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

Yes, I have gathered your contention.

[brendan]

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.

[neophyte]

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.

[brendan]

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.

[neophyte]

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.

[bubble sunglasses]

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

[brendan]

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.

[jamesdrv]

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?

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

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."