Combining Texts

Ideas for 'works', 'Against Liberalism' and 'Epiphenomenal and supervenient causation'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

25. Social Practice / B. Equalities / 1. Grounds of equality
To rectify the undeserved equality, we should give men longer and women shorter lives [Kekes]
     Full Idea: Redistribution ought to aim to equalise the life expectancy of men and women, by making men have longer and women shorter lives.
     From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.4)
     A reaction: This is a nice satirical counterexample to the Rawlsian claim that 'undeserved inequalities should somehow be compensated for' [Rawls 1971: 100]. See also Kurt Vonnegut's story 'Harrison Bergeron'.
It is just a fact that some people are morally better than others [Kekes]
     Full Idea: It is an obviolus fact that some people are morally better than others and that some are morally worse.
     From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 10.4)
     A reaction: This could be conceded, without then asserting that the moral ones are superior, or more deserving. That is a social strategy, rather than a fact. We can challenge the criteria for 'morally better', but we can't deny a rankng once it is agreed.
25. Social Practice / B. Equalities / 4. Economic equality
It is not deplorable that billionaires have more than millionaires [Kekes]
     Full Idea: It is certainly not intuitively deplorable that billionaires have more money than millionaires.
     From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 05.3)
     A reaction: Nice point. His claim is that sufficiency is the important feature, and equality is largely irrelevant. The reality, though, is that the billionaires, unlike the millionaires, could solve the insufficiency problem.
The problem is basic insufficiency of resources, not their inequality [Kekes]
     Full Idea: If everyone has sufficient resources, it is not objectionable that some have more than others. What is objectionable is that some do not have enough.
     From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 10.3)
     A reaction: Reasonable, but there seems to be sharp disagreement between the haves and the have-nots over what counts as 'enough'. In an affluent country, does enough include a car, restaurant dining, and foreign holidays? Or just food and shelter?