"inequality" in the homepage

[Collin Li]

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).

[Mao]

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.

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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).

[neophyte]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[neophyte]

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?

[Collin Li]

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.

[absurdity]

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.

[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

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.

[absurdity]

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.

[Collin Li]

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)?

[brendan]

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?

[enwiabe]

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.

[absurdity]

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.