One interesting idea raised by the epistolary dialogue is William Ryan's "fair shares" concept of equality. Manuel aptly wonders whether it might be an oddly stipulative definition of equality, but it's a powerful idea either way. The suggestion is that we (and Bentham, among others) have confusedly limited ownership to those paradigm cases of individual rightful possession and control, neglecting the infrastructural nature of most of what makes our material lives good -- and to be useful, infrastructure must be shared. The more property is deployed and managed for our collective good, on this view, the less important its individual distribution will be to our well being.
We will see presently whether this somewhat obvious insight poses a challenge to Hegel's construction of property as the sine qua non of fully developed human identity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I want to know more about this "rough equality" Harriet and Manuel mention. Is this the idea that all persons are provided with basic needs that are consistent with each other? So, in this sense, equality does not mean the same or similar, it refers to what Ryan dubs “fair shares”. And when each person is allotted a “fair share”, this amount might vary according to need. For example, a mentally challenged or disabled person will require more of this share to be on an equal par with those who do not require special attention. Is this the basic principle at work here?
The idea of social equality (or fairness) is appealing; but only if the human spirit is allowed to practice a most essential and fundamental necessity: competition. It makes sense, in all stages of a developing society, to ensure that social, political, and, economical equality (not sameness, but fairness) act as the basis of community. A system that maintains a socialist infrastructure might also benefit from something akin to capitalism. When our most basic needs are met, we might see people pursuing their passions and genuine interests. This amounts to a society where every member has the opportunity to recognize their gifts, bring them to fruition, and share/give them to others. (I think Matt mentioned this, or a similar idea in class.) The human spirit of competition, or entrepreneurial spirit, is healthy and generates positive effects that are not reliant on the exploitation of other sentient beings. All persons are not created equal; so, we might provide for those who cannot; while preserving the human instinct to create, invent, and, compete.
If moral value differentiates groups of sentient creatures placing these groups in a hierarchal system, is the scalar concept of equality, or “rough equality”, accounting for the degrees of differences within the particular groups? And, how do we account for possible exceptions between groups: such as, my seeing eye dog has more moral value than Hitler.
how can we curb entrepreneurship to be valued only as it contributes to the betterment of society as opposed to oneself without making it obligatory and loosing the spirit? we briefly touched upon this in class today, and i think it is more valuable than the time allotted to it (i simply don't think it was central to our discussion today). if we have to bully people into doing the right thing, they will be doing it for the wrong reason (in the case of someone being polite instead of being a good person). i used to be polite out of fear instilled by my parents, when i got out on my own, i avoided situations where i would be expected to be polite to people who had nothing better to talk about. there is still a heavy part of me that feels this; i do not desire to be "nice" though i often am perceived as such because i see the unity of existence. i am at times difficult to be around for the same reason; people would rather have their ego stroked than to be redirected and i let those people sleep because they will awaken in their own time, and me giving any more than a slight nudge would provoke negative energy.
But what is "fair" if two individuals seek the same object but cannot negotiate? In lieu of the conference that is coming up this week, my head is wrapped around fair division and the process of allocating significant items to the Israeli and Palestinian Authority peoples. I have seen through the process of the adjusted winner procedure - which I explained roughly in class a little while ago - that in situations such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict, nothing is fair, even if everyone gets what he or she wanted. So, I wonder if it would be fair to have an unequal distribution of goods.
In my example, there is no f-ing way that the conflict will ever come to a quiet and peaceful close - in fact it may never cease to exist - so perhaps that's another issue we should identify: for countries that are currently locked in a prisoner's dilemma kind of situation, what can be - or ought to be - done to resolve it? Should it ever be resolved?
in my opinion (though i'd argue it wasn't an opinion at all) is that it is only fair to neglect the illusory need to attach oneself to the material world. you want security? do not desire what anyone else can take from you. this is not an easy thing to ask, but it is worth the unity of existence and depletion of all suffering, nothing less is at stake here. the traditional paradigm has existed for over 2000 years and we find ourselves equally if not more unhappy, we must be willing to seek and embrace the only win-win situation!
Post a Comment