Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[Baneat]

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Theft is never a valid option, in my opinion. If said beggar needed money so badly, he could have approached the man and offered to do an odd job for a few dollars or something like that. Instead, he attacked him. I can't see justification for that.

My dissonance comes from the fact that I wouldn't say the beggar was justifiable in his actions

But I'd at least understand why he did it, and sympathise with his position to a degree.

Fair enough. I would sympathize with the man too. That doesn't make what he did right though.

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

 

[viranimus]

Ok, I exercise my freedom to wonder why this isnt in political.

I am also confused by the intermelding of politics and philosophy, as it seems like some are thinking these highly subjective terms are all encompassing embodiments of ideology.

Fact is, governmental ideology, Communism, Captialism, Democracy, Monarchy, as well as sociological concepts such as socialism, individualism, Liberty, freedom, equality, etc are all failed and flawed concepts that we use because of the failings of human nature that prevent a system of self government from existing.

That is the only system of government that will ever be true and fair, and it would take a complete and fundamental shift in human nature for it ever to see the light of day.

So... I will, pick.... uhhhhhh...... ok, Sure, freedom. Freedom is simply put a more attainable goal naturally. Equality goes against not only human nature, but nature itself.

All I really want is not be confronted with thinly veiled attempts at forcing discourse to validate support for either conservativism and liberalism.

 

[TheDutchin]

as soon as i saw the equality bit i thought of the story "Harrison Bergeron", it displays that while equality is good, too much equality is a terrible, terrible thing. And on freedom, same thing, too much freedom and suddenly people are free to do what ever they want, without restriction. That may sound good at first but then think about psychopaths and murderers and thieves etc. etc. but overall i think that freedom is more important than equality, but neither is good in excess

 

[Thundero13]

Well personally I think we have enough freedom here in the land of Eire, and I really think equality is important, but a lot of other countries don't have as much freedom do they...

 

[zehydra]

ideally, the whole point of equality is to make people equally free.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

I think a mix of both is the best

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

If we don't have freedom, we don't have equality. If people don't have freedom, that means that somebody that is above them is controlling them, so there is not equality.

Freedom is above all else.

If we have freedom without equality, then those above have the freedom to exploit those below for personal gain, destroying the freedom of those below - we have no freedom.

If we have equality, no one can tell anyone what to do - we have freedom

No.

If there is straight and to the point equality, that means there has to be somebody that is keeping people in line.

This is not equality. If there is someone who needs to control these people, then by definition it is not equality.

People don't need to be kept in line if they are equal - that's fascism.

That means people are being controlled, which means they don't have freedom. Just like the forced social crap that Obama wants to implement in the US, making community service a requirement for people to graduate high school. The problem is that there are many people and kids out there that would rather just care for themselves and their own lives instead of there time being taken up by others. Charity is something to be given willingly, not something to force people to do.

The minute people start forcing people into some straight line, an "equality mold" were everybody has to go through the same things and the same requirements in life, freedom dies. Freedom can't live in an environment where authority pigeon holes people into certain directions.

Your ideology of 'equality' is flawed, as I have just stated. You are talking about 'forced equality', which as I have said in another post, is not equality. By equality, I mean we all have equal rights, equal freedoms, and an equal worth. That is true equality.

Equality doesn't mean we are forced to be the same - it may be a common product, but it is not necessary.

I really believe that there isn't such a thing as pure equality, because if it happens, it means that people are forced to be a certain way, because if they aren't areas of inequality will happen. It is the nature of things. If we attain pure equality, there will be no freedom.

With such a structured society that believes for the good of the whole is most important and everybody should work towards it, we won't have people like artists and free spirits. In such a society, entertainment doesn't work for the good of the whole because it just wastes time that could be used for new advances to better humanity. In this scenario there will be no room for games. Games foster competition and in competition in the end, not all people are equal.

Again, equality doesn't mean we're all the same. If we are equal, it doesn't mean we're all working for the state - again, that's fascism. We still have our individual beliefs, and values, and identity, and choices - we just don't have anyone above us telling us what we can or cannot do. This produces more freedom

So, I advocate that we don't work towards pure equality, because at that point there wouldn't be freedom. Racial equality, that is fine. But there will be no such thing as economic equality, because having such would force people to give to the whole, it would be taking away their freedom to do with their money as they please; they earned the money or the money was willed to them, so it is their money and they should be able to do with it as they please.

Freedom is above all else, because once there is pure equality, there will be no freedom.

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

Agreed, I just don't see how some people don't get that connection. Though they will probably hide behind the idea that is the law that the money is being taken, so that is okay. But, it isn't right even if it is the law, because that is saying by law theft is okay if it is for someone who needs it.

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

Comparing to what Agayek said above, if some poor person robs a rich person, or anyone for that matter, it is a crime, theft. But, it is okay to just take somebody's money because someone else needs it?

In both cases someone needs the money, but I believe it is wrong in both cases, it is theft.

Here is another thing, you talk about somebody being born rich. Yeah, he might not have done anything to deserve it, but it doesn't mean the money isn't his. Being deserving has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of inheritance. The money that the rich kid gets more than likely, a family member bequeathed it to the person in his or her will. It was that person's last wish that the money go to this person, his or her family member. This is basically for the soul purpose that the family member doesn't have to worry about money.

If I won the lottery, and I became some great multi-millionaire, or I actually did something that earned me that money. Yeah, I'll give some of it to charity, but the bulk will stay in my family, and I would leave it to my future family members when I die, because I don't want them to have to want for anything. I'd be pretty pissed if someone came to my family member or family members that I gave the money to and told them that they didn't deserve it and took it to give to somebody else.

This whole "deserving" thing is for the birds. If people have money because somebody to wanted them to have it, they are as deserving as anybody else.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Increase equality and greater freedom will follow.

Freedom (economic at least) won't create equality.

They are mutually exclusive.

"Men and women are equal, under a tyrant's boot."

See that? You choose equality and get tyranny.

Wouldn't true equality imply that all men and women are equal? Doesn't this mean that this tyrant is equal to all men and women? Doesn't this mean the tyrant has no greater worth than any man or woman, and thus is no longer a tyrant?

If equality meant everyone was the leader of a country, then Feminism is a movement of anarchists.

I don't quite see how feminism fits into this - feminism is not about anarchy or leadership, it's about the inequalities between women and men; anarchism or any such ideal doesn't come into it. I did not mention feminism, and it is not relevant in my point

My point is that with true equality, there would be no place for tyranny.

You didn't see my point? Really? You really see no point in that analogy? The same point you pointed out? Yes there would be a place of tyranny. No matter how equal a country can be, tyranny can still happen.

?If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy? - James Madison.

Tyranny can come at any time, and anywhere. The more people forget the faster it comes. When people forget to uphold the freedom they fought for centuries ago, it all falls apart. Freedom is not a one time thing, it needs to be maintained. Gender equality and political equality are not the same.

Eh... feminism is not an apt analogy because it does not involve the state in the same way anarchism does. The statement that Feminism is a movement of anarchists is not sound because anarchism is not a point in feminism. I assume you are implying feminism is equality, and that is not the case - feminism is a type of equality, a branch of it, regarding only gender differences.

You have missed my main point anyway - if everyone was equal, there would be no tyrants, because everyone is equal. By definition this is true - if there is tyranny in a state of equality, there is no longer equality.

Said tyrant would have to be above all others in order to be a tyrant. If there is true equality, this tyrant would be equal to, not above, all others - hence, he would have no power, and thus would not be a tyrant.

What you're thinking of is political equality, a form of communism. That is not the same as gender equality, the one at hand. If gender equality meant no tyrants, than feminism would be against the government. However, it is not.

No structure means not even TRIBES can be formed. Everything humans have ever done was due to government. Without government, everything we worked for falls apart. Humans are social creatures, and depend on social structure. To take that away is a idealistic, and flawed, philosophy.

We're not talking about gender equality or feminism. We're talking about general equality - political equality. I'm not sure where you got gender equality from in this debate. I'm not saying feminism is against the government - i'm not even talking about feminism.

So are you saying we should be working for progress above all else? I don't believe so, I think we should be working for happiness, equality, and freedom above all else. What is the deal if what we've worked for falls apart - what have we worked for? A capitalist, oppression-governed greed-driven hierarchal society in which some people are worth less than others and live short unhappy lives oppressed by modernism? Fuck that.

 

[cgentero]

Equality, that is true equality, not equality under an oppressive force which negates the whole concept of equality, is to me the more preferable option. Societies where people are legally, socially, economically, etc. equal are often more peaceful and more happy.

 

[deserteagleeye]

Harrison Bergeron.

 

[Agayek]

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

Why does it matter if you would do it in that situation?

How one would likely behave in any given situation has no bearing on whether or not that behavior is morally just.

I can see mitigated punishment if the perpetrator was truly desperate, hell I'd even agree with that. That doesn't make theft any more acceptable or just however. It simply means I pity those who are desperate enough to resort to violating the social contract. No more.

 

[Baneat]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

You're both promoting the protection of personal liberties (The right to own shit without fear for being stolen)

And the infringement of it (Robin hooding)

I'm sticking to my guns with option A in thinking terms, but they are incompatible theories, and B causes some moral unease even still.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point

Yeah no. Don't insult me by trying to say I am socialist. What I was pointing out was socialist. In the other thing I quoted you on, you talking about taking money from some rich people because they didn't earn it, and give it to other people, that is socialist.

My mindset is capitalist. People earn money and then they deem what is the proper use for their money. If they want to pass the money down through the family, that is their freedom and choice.

I am a capitalist. People have work for their money, it is a system of hard work. It is a system where nobody else but the people that earn the money says what it is good for.

Everything I have said in this thread is of a capitalist mentality. It is a system where the lazy get left behind, it is a system where there is no such thing as government handouts. The problem with this country is that it doesn't foster a true capitalist system.

I am not anything else, but a Capitalist Pure Conservative.

 

[Xixikal]

We can never be free. Death is the only release from life, and I'm not so keen on that.
Equality is an ideal goal, one that I would see reached. However, due to humanity's... humanity, total equality is near impossible.

 

[spartan231490]

Recently, I was listening to talk radio with my father, and the pundit brought up something very interesting. He brought up freedom and equality, and their role in society. So, Escapists, what should civilization strive for more? Are there more important ideals to be focused on? Please discuss.

Freedom, god made us all free to make our own choices(evolution or intelligent design if that's more your belief, admittedly I'm on the intelligent design team myself), but he made us all somewhat unequal. Also, you can't force people to be equal, our society is specialized for unequal tasks, and trying to make us all equal is folly, freedom however, can be achieved. Also, you can never take freedom, we will always be free to make our own choices, you can only use force to enforce consequences we won't like for choices the gov't doesn't like, and ruling by force will always end poorly for both the people and the gov't eventually, it's a road to be avoided. Then again: "The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

Agreed, I just don't see how some people don't get that connection. Though they will probably hide behind the idea that is the law that the money is being taken, so that is okay. But, it isn't right even if it is the law, because that is saying by law theft is okay if it is for someone who needs it.

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

Comparing to what Agayek said above, if some poor person robs a rich person, or anyone for that matter, it is a crime, theft. But, it is okay to just take somebody's money because someone else needs it?

In both cases someone needs the money, but I believe it is wrong in both cases, it is theft.

Here is another thing, you talk about somebody being born rich. Yeah, he might not have done anything to deserve it, but it doesn't mean the money isn't his. Being deserving has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of inheritance. The money that the rich kid gets more than likely, a family member bequeathed it to the person in his or her will. It was that person's last wish that the money go to this person, his or her family member. This is basically for the soul purpose that the family member doesn't have to worry about money.

If I won the lottery, and I became some great multi-millionaire, or I actually did something that earned me that money. Yeah, I'll give some of it to charity, but the bulk will stay in my family, and I would leave it to my future family members when I die, because I don't want them to have to want for anything. I'd be pretty pissed if someone came to my family member or family members that I gave the money to and told them that they didn't deserve it and took it to give to somebody else.

This whole "deserving" thing is for the birds. If people have money because somebody to wanted them to have it, they are as deserving as anybody else.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

 

[Agayek]

Your ideology of 'equality' is flawed, as I have just stated. You are talking about 'forced equality', which as I have said in another post, is not equality. By equality, I mean we all have equal rights, equal freedoms, and an equal worth. That is true equality.

Equality doesn't mean we are forced to be the same - it may be a common product, but it is not necessary.

Except people are not equal, and so someone would have to make them equal. You've mentioned in your posts that everyone has different beliefs, opinions, values, etc, yet you fail to grasp the simple fact that those differences make people unequal.

The only way for everyone to have true equality is for everyone to be exactly the same, and that requires outside intervention.

 

[Baneat]

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

Why does it matter if you would do it in that situation?

How one would likely behave in any given situation has no bearing on whether or not that behavior is morally just.

I can see mitigated punishment if the perpetrator was truly desperate, hell I'd even agree with that. That doesn't make theft any more acceptable or just however. It simply means I pity those who are desperate enough to resort to violating the social contract. No more.

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point

Yeah no. Don't insult me by trying to say I am socialist. What I was pointing out was socialist. In the other thing I quoted you on, you talking about taking money from some rich people because they didn't earn it, and give it to other people, that is socialist.

My mindset is capitalist. People earn money and then they deem what is the proper use for their money. If they want to pass the money down through the family, that is their freedom and choice.

I am a capitalist. People have work for their money, it is a system of hard work. It is a system where nobody else but the people that earn the money says what it is good for.

Everything I have said in this thread is of a capitalist mentality. It is a system where the lazy get left behind, it is a system where there is no such thing as government handouts. The problem with this country is that it doesn't foster a true capitalist system.

I am not anything else, but a Capitalist Pure Conservative.

...ah. I see now.

Capitalism created hierarchy, which creates inequality, unbalancing freedom. I understand the notion of people working for their money, but it is a system run by greed, power, money, and inequality. It is a biased system. Especially given that we have to prove our eligibility to work, so only some people can actually get the opportunity to work for money. And we have to pay to prove our eligibility - it just doesn't work in a society which promotes equality and freedom (and it does - almost all western societies use red white and blue on their flag: "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" (sp?) in the words of the French).

I don't believe in a system where some people are less than others. There is so much wrong with capitalism in this regard - I won't go into it all, but ask me any specific question about it and I will answer.