Is equality actually a good thing?

[Daniel Unplugged]

Equality is an idea that seems to be universally spoken about as if it is desirable, and that desiring equality is a good thing. I am starting to think that it is not, and that desiring equality is actually an evil (for lack of a better word) desire. I will argue this by focusing on wealth equality, although the principles apply to all forms of equality.

 

If someone desires wealth equality, then they desire poor people to be richer and, importantly, they desire rich people to be poorer. Both desires are necessary since both desires will achieve a greater level of wealth equality. If a person wants poor people to be richer but does not want rich people to be poorer, then it is inaccurate to say that they desire equality, even though making poor people richer will result in a greater level of equality (equality is not the desire, it is an unintended consequence of achieving the desire, the desire is to make poor people richer). I think we all accept that being richer is better, and a richer person will have a better life than a poor one. 4 things result from this belief:

 

1. Desiring a poor person to be richer is good

2. Desiring a poor person to be poorer is evil

3. Desiring a rich person to be richer is good

4. Desiring a rich person to be poorer is evil

 

Since a person who desires equality wants rich people to have a life that is less good than it currently is, it must be true that a desire for equality is an evil desire. A person who only desires good, desires both rich and poor people to be richer, and does not desire equality.

 

Your thoughts?

[dsayers]

People talk about equality as if it's obtainable. If everybody had the exact same amount of money, money would be worthless as we'd never be able to spend it.

[Nerburg]

Desiring equity of outcome is bad, I think, but egalitarianism can refer to equality in areas that don't get evil applied? Such as equal rights?

[Daniel Unplugged]

I would argue no. The same principle applies to equality of rights as to equality of wealth. Of course, when someone argues for equality of rights they do not, as far as I have observed, advocate the reduction in the rights of those said to have more rights. That is, they don't actually want equality per se, they only want to increase the rights of those who dont have them, which is virtuous. When they say they want equality, they are being imprecise.

[LanceD]

Equality is evil because it requires that you knock down or otherwise hold back those capable of success.

[ribuck]

...when someone argues for equality of rights they do not, as far as I have observed, advocate the reduction in the rights of those said to have more rights. That is, they don't actually want equality per se, they only want to increase the rights of those who dont have them, which is virtuous. When they say they want equality, they are being imprecise.

 

Agreed. What they actually want is universality of rights rather than equality of rights.

[PatrickC]

Equality is evil because it requires that you knock down or otherwise hold back those capable of success.

 

Agreed, equality is one of these noble leftist ideas, that are impossible to reach. It's where vacuous arguments about checking ones privilege come from. It not only unfairly treats those with better skills and qualities, but elevates those above their own individual capacity. It's like every single leftist idea, it utterly destroys incentive.

[Usethem]

Agreed, equality is one of these noble leftist ideas, that are impossible to reach. It's where vacuous arguments about checking ones privilege come from. It not only unfairly treats those with better skills and qualities, but elevates those above their own individual capacity. It's like every single leftist idea, it utterly destroys incentive.

Agreed. Another political carrot-rope. No one pursuing it is ever going to win, they're just losing a little less than other people. In these situations an individual has the possibility of falling onto one of three perspectives; either the mule, the farmer holding the carrot-stick, or one of the kids leaning sitting on the fence watching the foolishness.

I would argue no. The same principle applies to equality of rights as to equality of wealth. Of course, when someone argues for equality of rights they do not, as far as I have observed, advocate the reduction in the rights of those said to have more rights. That is, they don't actually want equality per se, they only want to increase the rights of those who dont have them, which is virtuous. When they say they want equality, they are being imprecise.

Its a tough thing to properly define though. I mean the debate over the concept of Identity has been batted around by the most luminous of luminaries. Its hard enough to prove that A = A, much less in terms of economy. I dunno, let me know if I'm wrong. I just figured I'd throw it out there.

[y2k1]

Equality is not only undefinable, but funnily enough the panel that gets to define equality isn't equal itself. For instance men cannot define gender equality has been achieved. Hell even the average woman's opinion is ignored.

 

The thing about equality is it is androgynous. Instead of having equal but different roles, we have this freak merging of women becoming men. So this 'equality' we speak of is inefficient and economically disastrous because only women can have kids. Right now the classes who are more adept to raising children are having less if at all and the underclass of illiterates and welfare claimers are having more.

 

No. Equality is not a good thing. We need specialization and obligations. Modern day woman has rejected specialization-child rearing and has not taken obligations of what would be expected of men. For instance men are jailed for child support. Women rarely are.