Economic Equality

[Michael]

In another thread, Father Jon asked if anyone is interested in discussing economic equality, and I definitely am, with an interest in the both the "technical" and "moral" side of the issue.

[Michael]

My 2 cents on this topic to get something started:

On the moral side of things, evil is very easy to define and can exist in any aspect of an individual: financial, religious, etc. Simply put, evil is something that benefits only one person, or a small group of people always working in secret, at the expense of others. The opposing viewpoint, goodness, is quite simply equality based on fairness and rules that apply to everyone with no advantage within the rules coming from superior knowledge or numbers of the group.

Morality is essentially about limiting one's own power in order to avoid harming others and their interests, but in society that limitation is not self-imposed. Instead, it is imposed by the group onto an individual through laws and customs. I think the most troublesome aspect of this is the confusion of who benefits from fairness and rules and what the purpose of these rules are. I say rules are aimed solely at the individual while some say they are for society and the "greater good" and I think that viewpoint tends to ignore individual consequences and responsibility, as well as incorrectly give identity and preferential status to groups that are nothing more than many individuals.

[edededed]

I would make three categories, as such:

Good: wanting to help/aid others
Neutral: considering personal benefit
Evil: wanting to hurt/harm others, or simply not having any qualms against hurting/harming others

Most animals are obviously neutral in general (as are most people). I would not say that animals are normally evil.

By the way, does anyone know how to create a political party? I am sick of Republicans and Democrats and all that - I just want to make my own Party of Good.

[Teazer]

On the moral side of things, evil is very easy to define and can exist in any aspect of an individual: financial, religious, etc. Simply put, evil is something that benefits only one person, or a small group of people always working in secret, at the expense of others.

I think your description needs to be clarified. One could say (and Adam Smith did), that people are motivated by self-interest, yet in many cases the results of their actions are overall beneficial. When someone takes part in a trade, the benefits are bounded - the better deal I negotiate, the worse off you are, though overall you are better off than without the trade.
I think evil would be more likely found in coercive situations where the recipients of their actions are unable to avoid them. In market terms, 'evil' would be an externality with an overall negative social value and only one actor that benefits directly.

[Michael]

I disagree, Teazer. The ends do not justify the means. When a car salesman or mortgage broker takes advantage of someone because he prevents them from learning the details of the contract, he is doing that for his own benefit at the other's expense. We've probably all fallen victim to that apparently culturally accepted evil.

Good and evil is simple: we are all born half good and half evil and continually choose between the two. Instincts for self-interest are part of human nature, but understanding the consequences for others and limiting ourselves is a moral responsibility. Simple example, if I take all the food because I can and deny others a chance to eat, that's evil. If I write a contract that is so long and so abstruse that the other person is likely to misunderstand and be penalized, just because I'm clever enough to persuade him to sign does not make it right. Just because I can do something, or just because I'm clever enough to get away with it, does not justify it and negotiations should be based on equal knowledge or it's just trickery.

Because of the ability of money to transform the fruits of our labor into a something abstract that can be accumulated and transfered to others, financial slavery is probably the greatest evil, and you can see it everywhere you look: easy credit ripoffs, various kinds of usury, sub-prime mortgages that are just waiting for foreclosure, fractional reserve banking, etc. If you want to talk strictly about coercion, then we can just move on to the World Bank and the IMF.

[Harvey]

Another issue is the delinquency of govt in terms of the abject poverty of ghetto-isation. It is getting worse on a global scale, where the underclass that were once the mainstary of the labourforce that has either been replaced by machines or had their jobs moved away to a foreign country because of labour costs have been left ot wither on the vine. Alcohol and drug abuse are rife, health standards ar near non existant due to lack of rescources and lack of education amongst the community, in most cases caused by this very problem itself. Areas where poorly educated children are having families of their own and in the UK this is actually seen as a way to get a home and therefore a good thing, what the hell is that about, esp since they have little or no social safety net.

[count]

I hope when I meet god, I can look straight into his eyes and not to one side or the other.

[Michael]

Amen! I think the whole point of our life/lives here is to learn how to reform our evil nature into more of a good one, even if that just means 51% good / 49% evil. Any movement toward the good side is progress. We're here to learn how to help each other is what it comes down to.

[DeusTrismegistus]

What does economic equality have to do with good and evil? What does right and wring have to do with economic equality?

What exactly makes being self serving evil? Is it the intention of the act that makes it a good or bad act or is it the act itself?

If I am a wealthy man and I want to run for a state office I might give away a lot of money to the less fortunate. The act itself, charity, is one most people think of as good, but the intention is self serving, which is evil. Most modern philosophers on ethics are of the opinion that intention does not matter.

The most common model is the Utilitarian model. Which states that the right or good action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So if the we know that the Iranians plan on starting a nuclear war after they develop wmd and that would cause a nuclear winter and kill off 95% of the worlds population, then it is a good act to pre-emptively strike Iran and destroy them if necessary to end the threat. That answer doesn't appeal to many people.

Bottom line is Evil is anything BUT easy to define. IMO Good and evil are artificial constructs. In religious philosophy they commonly define the western (christian, hebrew, and muslim) god as having three major characteristics. Those are Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. If we throw out the last one, being all good, then we eliminate several of the major conundrums like how can a good and just god allow evil to exist. Personally I go a step further and say that good and evil are merely artificial illusions.

So if we forget about good and evil we can look at things from a perspective of beneficial vs detrimental. An economy is by MY definition a group of individuals who interact via producing, providing services, trading, buying, and selling to obtain necessary goods and desired goods for themselves or their households. Every person has essential needs and we need a method of providing those needs. It is more efficient as a whole to specialize in providing a single need than to provide for yourself all your needs. So economy itself can be viewed as a simple extension of self preservation, an evolution of it.

Now if you think carefully the evolution I described briefly evolved from SELF INTEREST. It is in my best interest to specialize and trade my one good for many other goods. It is in my best interest for a currency to develop that can be saved so I can preserve wealth longer than my material trade goods last or are valuable.

So in an economy we can safely say that each individual acts in ways that he thinks will result in the most benefit to himself. So inevitably we get people who try to beat down other individuals and take advantage of other people to gain more benefit for themself. So the question becomes how can we create economic equality in a system thats very driver is self serving when it is an extension of that driver that fuels the powerful and wealthy to prey on the weak and poor?

So back to the beneficial vs detrimental thing. Basic conundrum and of a perfect competition economy (many buyers and many sellers); lets say you are a farmer. You produce corn. All your neighbors produce corn. Well you want to make more money. You can't charge more for your corn because it won't sell unless your neighbors raises their prices too. So how do you make more? You produce more! Your neighbor wants to make more moeny too and he can't effect price either so what does he do? He produces more! So what happens when you and all your corn producing neighbors produce more corn with no drop increase in demand? The price drops, and depending on the elasticity of the demand curve you can make less money even though you produce more.

So in the above case, which is the reason the US Govt will pay farmers to let field sit fallow, what was the apparent beneficial action was actually a detrimental action because it had a net detrimental effect on the whole economy. Effects that may be beneficial to one party can have a negative detrimental impact on the economy as a whole. Anything that negatively impacts the economy as a whole will eventually have a detrimental impact on the original entity.

The problem is value of the shorterm benefits. Look at the case of Chainsaw Al Dunlap, http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_42/b3651099.htm, who would go into a struggling business and take over as CEO and make short term changes that resulted in increased share price, which his pay was tied directly too, but his changes had huge negative impacts on the company in the long run. There will always be people who will try to destroy other people in order to gain the greatest short term personal benefit and possibly long term for them personally if they can avoid any negative consequences.

This is really the fundamental failure IMO of the capitalist model. As a entity in the economy it in your best interest to eliminate competition. It in your best interest to strive to be a monopoly. However monopolies have the same negative impact on the economy as taxes do.

Now in the long run it is in everyones best interest if everyone plays by the same rules. Statistically given an economy someone somewhere will reach monopoly power. When this happens you are screwed and everyone is screwed except the few people that the monopolist allows to not be screwed. So it is very unlikely that you will be the big cahuna when the shit goes down, it is very likely he will screw you though. So as a society and as an individual it is in your best interest to prevent monopolies from arising and any one individual from gaining too much power.

The problem with our society is that the monopolies have developed already and their are now vested interests in maintaining that power and these interests are not only trying to maintain their power but expand it, which has a negative impact on the economy as a whole and which will eventually have a negative impact on the perpetrators. The problem we have now is that the power brokers are planning for the long term. Globalization is the name of the game. It is one of the current factors in the weakening of the US economy. However the people at the top of the monopolies have moved their corporation out of the country and are taking advantage of the globalization trend. An economy is a system. A system has boundaries. When the US was isolationist most of the economy was self contained and events and prices outside of the country had little effect, it also meant that the US economy was easier to damage and could retailiate easier. By promoting globalization the people in charge have essentially changed their playing field from 300 million mostly educated individuals to 6+ billion mostly uneducated individuals. They now have a much larger Global economy to take advantage of an many groups of people who are uneducated about monopoly power and may even welcome it as they will benefit the countries jobs move too, at the detriment of the US and Europe for the most part.

So the question is how can we maintain an economic system that promotes economic equality without damaging our rights as americans and as humans? How can a capitalist society protect themselves from the development and growth of the power brokers?

And back to Father Jon's original statement. "It is interesting that the issue of social control in our time has tended towards sexual morality rather than economic slavery. If this interests anyone else, perhaps we can get a side thread going." It seems to me that the powers in charge have done their best to move the focus away from economic slavery and to sexual morality because it keeps people from realizing what is going on. Sexual morality is also something that is always present and within US culture economic issues have not been as much of a problem as they were since the great depression really. Sex is also captivating and motivating, it is another primal need that some people feel threatened and confused by. So not all people who make a big deal of sexual morality are doing it to draw attention away from economic trouble, likely none are. But in teh US the majority of people have their basic needs met and can worry about things like art, beauty, sport, games, and their immortal soul. Until things get really bad economically again like in the Great Depression, the majority of people will not view economics as a major issue.

[C-Hopkins]

"Good and evil" are interchangeable.

During WW2 many Germans believed it was "Good" to exterminte the Jews-

The reason why economic equality is important is because the idea in and of itself is reflective of the human desire to achieve a higher moral ideal-

This speaks directly to the subconcious fundamental need inherent in all of us to be someone of value and merit during our time in this world- which is why the spiritual teachings all relect this sentiment.

Why economic equality is important specifically is because it is again representitive of the higher human ideal of compassion for everyone.
What fucks things up is greed and lack of compassion/desire for control and power which is at its root grounded in insecurity
And is tuly representitive of fear of death-
Thus the deire for more money/power etc

[Steve James]

This is the typical 18th century Enlightenment issue. Mike U. mentioned "ends don't justify the means." When it comes to "morals," Kant argued that it was primarily important to "treat a person as an end and not a means." That means always taking into account that the other guy has his own pov. Kant didn't apply this principle to slavery. Actually, slavery instigated the debate. People were being used as "ends" (financial profit, property) as opposed to being considered "means." Anyway, Kant's opinion on "good/evil" was that there was, somewhere, a "summum bonum." However, human beings do not have access to it, enough to determine whether any act of theirs is "good" or "bad." The example of the trade is perfect. There's no such thing as a "good" trade. There is only a "fair" trade. That implies that both parties compromise or are satisfied with the result of the trade. If the trade is considered "fair", then it is "good." John Rawls took this idea further and proposed a theory of "justice as fairness." To determine what is fair, one only needs consult the respective parties. This applies to all situations where individuals are competing for scarce resources.

The English took a more utilitarian tack. Some thought that one could actually quantify "good." Ultimately, they failed I.e., there are many cases where "good" is relative. They gave up trying. Some later philosophers argued that the superior man is "beyond good and evil." You could say that this argument caused Europe a lot of grief in the 20th century.

[Teazer]

Bottom line is Evil is anything BUT easy to define.

Agreed

So in an economy we can safely say that each individual acts in ways that he thinks will result in the most benefit to himself. So inevitably we get people who try to beat down other individuals and take advantage of other people to gain more benefit for themself. So the question becomes how can we create economic equality in a system thats very driver is self serving when it is an extension of that driver that fuels the powerful and wealthy to prey on the weak and poor?

So why economic equality? True equality is one of the lousiest goals I can imagine. It causes havoc with incentives for productive behaviour. Perhaps a better goal is to reduce the difference in the assets people start with, then allow them to accumulate whatever they can during their life. Something like a 100% tax on inherited wealth. Assuming there was a way of preventing people from exploiting all the miriad loopholes in that strategy!

[Darthwing Teorist]

Some later philosophers argued that the superior man is "beyond good and evil." You could say that this argument caused Europe a lot of grief in the 20th century.

Yeah, one of my friends once wrote about people who say that good and evil is an outdated concept, that they are lucky not know that the blood in a 2 year old baby can cover the walls of a whole appartment. Meaning that very few of us are exposed today to attrocities so we think that we are somehow beyond these concepts.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Bottom line is Evil is anything BUT easy to define.

Agreed

So in an economy we can safely say that each individual acts in ways that he thinks will result in the most benefit to himself. So inevitably we get people who try to beat down other individuals and take advantage of other people to gain more benefit for themself. So the question becomes how can we create economic equality in a system thats very driver is self serving when it is an extension of that driver that fuels the powerful and wealthy to prey on the weak and poor?

So why economic equality? True equality is one of the lousiest goals I can imagine. It causes havoc with incentives for productive behaviour. Perhaps a better goal is to reduce the difference in the assets people start with, then allow them to accumulate whatever they can during their life. Something like a 100% tax on inherited wealth. Assuming there was a way of preventing people from exploiting all the miriad loopholes in that strategy!

Well I think it is impossible to go much farther without a definition of just what economic equality would be I will leave that up to someone else for now.

[Teazer]

I disagree, Teazer. The ends do not justify the means. When a car salesman or mortgage broker takes advantage of someone because he prevents them from learning the details of the contract, he is doing that for his own benefit at the other's expense. We've probably all fallen victim to that apparently culturally accepted evil.

Self serving, yes. Socially inefficient, yes. I wouldn't go as far as 'evil' though. There are innumerable contingencies that might make the salesman's actions morally 'good'.

Good and evil is simple

Isn't the opposite of good = 'bad'? Then the opposite of evil might be 'saintly'