Should Society be Made more Fair?

[cubby]

I have had people tell me that "life is unfair," and that "people should just accept their lot in life, society owes no one anything, and that people should just bow their heads and in submission to system and the ruling class."

However, I would counter argue that, yes it is true that nature is random and therefore intrinsically unfair, but because we possess an advanced morality that allows us to feel compassion and empathy for other human beings, then an obligation is then placed on us to make a society that is more fair for everyone.

In short, we are not animals in the primal sense. Due to our advanced moral structure we have obligations that other animals do not. An abstract idea of fairness is one of those obligations.

In increasing morality is the only way forward. To become an galactic species we must first become a global species, and the only way that we are going to become a global species is by feeling empathy for foreign citizens which leads to unity. This is achieved by an evolutionary increasing morality.

Capitalism goes against the evolutionary trait of morality because it dehumanize people into mere cogwheels of production that are meant to be exploited for profit. Therefore I conclude that capitalism goes against the evolution of human social progress.

Not sure why you're getting all this hostility - very interesting topic.

I would argue that yes, we are moving to a more "fair" based society - and we should do so. I think technology will bridge a number of current inherently "unfair" gaps that come, from the most part, wealth and inheritance.

As technology improves our daily lives, drastically, over the next 100-150 years - we'll see the loss of all death from poverty, equalized education, the elimination of wealth to a large extent affecting what we can have (nanotechnology), and our ability to enjoy the life we have (there is also the outside chance at effective immortality).

Check out: http://www.futuretimeline.net

[Youn]

This is explored in Atlas Shrugged. Basically, laws were passed that said you couldn't make items better then your fellow man. All people were paid for their labor equally not matter the amount of labor that was done.

So, if you invented an item, it was the entire company that would benefit from the item and not just you. And sense, no company could create a better product then the next company. It killed innovation.

This goes with the thought that, if I give you a basic allowance no matter the action you do. Then what is to motivate you to do any action at all. You can do absolutely nothing and gain the same thing as someone that does everything.

[Najnaj]

Is Mother Nature fair to the gazelle as it gets its neck ripped open by a lion?

The problem with this is that we all think of ourselves as lions...but we really are gazelles.

To answer OP. Yes,the world should be fairer. We should have safety nets. Not only because it is fair and the right thing to do but mostly because it is cheap. Being unfair is very, VERY expensive. When people don't think that they belong or when they resent they start to cost HUGE amounts of money.

[msdos]

Taxing rich people more is actually moving slightly towards equality of outcome.

I always thought taxing the rich is stupid.
One, the people with all the money are the ones making business moves, naturally, they want to extend the life of their money or keep working or they wanna be their own boss, they open up businesses that have the potential to turn into huge companies.
Second, would we even be talking about taxing the rich or talking about inequality AT ALL if those people were never allowed to amass so much money in the first place? Like why wasn't the money distributed out in the first place? It's shady business practices, bottom line and no one can legally step in and do anything about it or it's branded government intervention even though the government intervenes on the sexual and drug market HORRIBLY and most likely countless others.

If a private company screws people out of pay, that's not capitalism, that's just shady business and it's everywhere, literally everywhere because the people with wealth can call all the shots and the means of production means almost nothing to no one.

[Rennadrel]

If life was fair, everyone would have the same amount of income and control over everything. Life isn't fair because some people work harder than others, or are more innovative, or they are better educated so they get better paying jobs. If life was fair, like would be easy, and it shouldn't. Everyone should have to put in the effort to be successful, but relying on others success to have your own is often foolish.

[jackofwind]

No, I believe equality of outcome is silly because every person has different abilities. All men are not created equal. However, I do deeply believe in equality of opportunity, and I believe in taxing the rich to equal opportunity for everyone.

Tax the rich to provide everyone equal opportunity to become rich and therefore be taxed more in order to allow more people to become rich, etc etc. How long before people realise there's no point in working towards becoming wealthy because it's too punitive to do so? And that's in an unrealistic best-case scenario where the rich don't just find ways of hiding their money so it won't be taxed.

[Wolfman31]

The problem with this is that we all think of ourselves as lions...but we really are gazelles.

Evolve or die.

[igualitarist]

Life fairness is the opposite of equality.

So you can't have both at the same time.

[Mittens]

Rise against the machine!!! Fuck capitalism!!!!

[OrcsRLame]

Society should be made more free, not more fair. The OP is just communist claptrap.

[msdos]

Tax the rich to provide everyone equal opportunity to become rich and therefore be taxed more in order to allow more people to become rich, etc etc. How long before people realise there's no point in working towards becoming wealthy because it's too punitive to do so?

What's the point of having more money than you can even spend? Or what's the point of having so much money that everything becomes valueless to you?

There should have been legal safeguards put in place to make sure employers can't screw over their employees. If you work hard, you should get paid, I don't give a damn what your job is. We have the technology now for 100% surveillance to see who does and doesn't perform, so there is no excuse to not have a system like this.

Everything points to Americans don't actually like each other, if you had to ask me why. Does it look like Americans like each other to you?

[OrcsRLame]

This is explored in Atlas Shrugged. Basically, laws were passed that said you couldn't make items better then your fellow man. All people were paid for their labor equally not matter the amount of labor that was done.

So, if you invented an item, it was the entire company that would benefit from the item and not just you. And sense, no company could create a better product then the next company. It killed innovation.

This goes with the thought that, if I give you a basic allowance no matter the action you do. Then what is to motivate you to do any action at all. You can do absolutely nothing and gain the same thing as someone that does everything.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it goes against the reality of Maslow's ladder.



Imo, the best way to have a functioning society, is to have the bottom two sections guaranteed as human rights. If you provide people with physiological and safety needs, but tell them that to acquire the psychological and self-fulfillment needs they will need to make their own way, that is not going to suddenly make the entire population so lazy that they decide to stare at a wall all day. I'm not an economist, so I don't know the best way to achieve this, but I think this should be the goal long term. The government makes sure you don't starve or go without shelter, but it doesn't pay for your xbox.

[Alydael]

I have had people tell me that "life is unfair," and that "people should just accept their lot in life, society owes no one anything, and that people should just bow their heads and in submission to system and the ruling class."

However, I would counter argue that, yes it is true that nature is random and therefore intrinsically unfair, but because we possess an advanced morality that allows us to feel compassion and empathy for other human beings, then an obligation is then placed on us to make a society that is more fair for everyone.

In short, we are not animals in the primal sense. Due to our advanced moral structure we have obligations that other animals do not. An abstract idea of fairness is one of those obligations.

In increasing morality is the only way forward. To become an galactic species we must first become a global species, and the only way that we are going to become a global species is by feeling empathy for foreign citizens which leads to unity. This is achieved by an evolutionary increasing morality.

Capitalism goes against the evolutionary trait of morality because it dehumanize people into mere cogwheels of production that are meant to be exploited for profit. Therefore I conclude that capitalism goes against the evolution of human social progress.

You can't make a society "more fair" for people. It's impossible. There are limited resources and items and too many people.

The best you can do is: 1) require and press your country so that everyone is treated equally under the law.
2) Try to treat people "fairly" in your life.

That is literally all you can do.

Otherwise you get into a lot of slippery slopes, like "what is "fair?" How can you make a determination whether someone is being treated "fairly?" You would basically have to know almost everything they have done, because: "have they treated others fairly?" If they haven't, then how much consideration should they get?

Everyone likes to try and boil this down to a talking point from their political ideology or a line they read somewhere by an article written by an "expert."

You don't need that though. You only need to think about it for a few minutes to see how crazy it is.

[msdos]

This is explored in Atlas Shrugged. Basically, laws were passed that said you couldn't make items better then your fellow man. All people were paid for their labor equally not matter the amount of labor that was done.

So, if you invented an item, it was the entire company that would benefit from the item and not just you. And sense, no company could create a better product then the next company. It killed innovation.

This goes with the thought that, if I give you a basic allowance no matter the action you do. Then what is to motivate you to do any action at all. You can do absolutely nothing and gain the same thing as someone that does everything.

The motivation is to be great.
This is like asking Michael Jordan what motivated him. It was just inside of him, he was born with it. Jordan was the only player to have a "Love of the game" clause on his contract, which basically means he was allowed to play basketball whenever and where ever he wanted, that's how much he loved the game of basketball and helps me use him as an example.

You don't snuff out a fire like that just because his daddy is making the same amount as the CEO of his daddy's company or whatever we're implying with basic allowance.

[Nihilist74]

I think i read or heard that Winston Churchill said, "War is hell, slavery is worse."

That sounds like slavery with extra steps!

[msdos]

Then why did he quite to try and play pro baseball?

Hold on, let me call him and ask him. Wtf, who do you think I am and what does that have to do with anything? He was still the greatest player to ever play..
*finger hovers over the block button*

[Zethras]

I said I believe in equality of opportunity. I never said anything about unlimited success. Yes, monetary gain should be limited to a certain extent.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh taxing everyone, including myself, to pay for universal healthcare and college tuition would be a good start.

Come to Canada, our healthcare is wonderful.

[msdos]

He is without a doubt (Arguably) the greatest player to play the game. When you ask people who the greatest Basketball player of all time that is you'll get Micheal Jordan. Similar to baseball you'll get Babe Ruth or boxing Mohammed Ali. I would also agree he was the greatest player, but not solely for his basketball skills. I think he was the greatest because he made everyone around him that much better.

Okay, that's cool.

[Machismo]

I said I believe in equality of opportunity. I never said anything about unlimited success. Yes, monetary gain should be limited to a certain extent.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh taxing everyone, including myself, to pay for universal healthcare and college tuition would be a good start.

You said equality of opportunity, then you said you want to have one group pay for it...

That literally undermines your comment. You are continuously contradicting yourself, and continuing to argue against yourself. Seriously, read what you type next time, and save yourself the embarrassment.

[nanook12]

Not sure why you're getting all this hostility - very interesting topic.

I would argue that yes, we are moving to a more "fair" based society - and we should do so. I think technology will bridge a number of current inherently "unfair" gaps that come, from the most part, wealth and inheritance.

As technology improves our daily lives, drastically, over the next 100-150 years - we'll see the loss of all death from poverty, equalized education, the elimination of wealth to a large extent affecting what we can have (nanotechnology), and our ability to enjoy the life we have (there is also the outside chance at effective immortality).

Check out: http://www.futuretimeline.net

I disagree. High technological innovation is something that capitalism is good at, and more advanced technology will likely require more capitalism which tends toward more inequality.

Socialism on other hand is bad at technological innovation because its incentives are weaker; however, socialism excels at the social progression of the human species and tends toward equality.

Capitalism:

Pro: High rates of technological innovation because the profit incentive is strong.

Con: Capitalism has high rates of inequality baked into the system fundamentally.

Socialism:

Pro: Very good at progressing the social structure of societies through a sense of fairness and equality.

Con: Not so good at technological innovation because the profit motive is weakened.