I think equality, as an ideal, should only apply in matters of law and justice. But outside of that I cannot see equality as anything worth striving for, and given your examples, even terrifying to consider.

Is this a joke?

If we truly value equality then why are we mostly stopping at economics? That's only one area of human life.

Not many want true equality in economics, that's called communism. Wanting to lessen economic inequality is more complex than "I love equality" and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that... People want that for different reasons than increasing equality and those reasons are motivations for people in many other areas but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth, they don't have a name for being more lost than that because it's so unusual.

but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth

I think you'd be surprised and I think you'd find a fair amount of support for this idea insofar as everyone is contributing and working hard.

EDIT: I think plenty of people just do value equality as well. Even as someone who's right-leaning the word doesn't disgust me.

I'd be surprised that there's a fair amount of support for communism? I fucking hope not.

How on earth do you get from here

We eliminate inheritance, and all inheritances are divvied up equally among the population. — BitconnectCarlos

to here

Lets go even further and say this has all worked out well: Everyone has attained a decent standard of living, poverty is eliminated, and everyone more or less works full-time unless they're unable (in which case they would still receive a pension.) — BitconnectCarlos

?

For one thing, there is no such thing as abolishing 'inheritance'. The only in way in which inheritance would be abolished is if everybody's property vanished in a puff of smoke upon cessation of the heart. When people say that they are opposed to inheritance, what they really mean is that there is a particular group of people whom they want to be the sole inheritors, namely the State. It is like when people say that they are 'anti-gun'; what they mean is that they want a State monopoly on the means of deadly force. People who are 'anti-inheritance' want a State monopoly on inheritance.

Semantics aside, there is nothing whatsoever about a 100% inheritance tax that works towards the alleviation of poverty. Indeed, there is nothing about government which works towards the alleviation of poverty. Only productive activity does this, and government is destructive in its very essence. The practical effect of a 100% inheritance tax would be for everybody to spend their hard-earned money in high living. If they cannot bequeath it, then why would they hold onto it? Either that, or else they would make a deed of gift to their beloved objects - their children, say - and become dependent upon them in their dotage (this arrangement is typical of parents and children in China). The only way of preventing this is by means of still further State control. Surprise, surprise: a preoccupation with economic egalitarian gives rise to authoritarianism. It has to go this way, which is why it always does.

Beyond this, egalitarianism is subject to the 'levelling down' objection, as the OP observes.

Virgo, I don't actually support any if this. What I'm doing is I'm just granting the leftists this hypothetical to press on another issue.

We could actually take steps to limit people's heights. It would involve limiting calories. It's also probably easier to make smart people dumb than dumb people smart, but why not try both simultaneously? You never really hear major social inequality of height, intelligence, or charisma in the world. — BitconnectCarlos

I guess the distinction you're looking for is inequalities that derive from features of political organisation with regard to resource access and distribution and inequalities that derive from other means. Seeing as we're talking about politics, it isn't so surprising that (allegedly at least) politically based inequalities are of concern to "leftists"; an umbrella term for a political sympathy.

My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here. — BitconnectCarlos

It doesn't. People also strive for equality of opportunity, that people should not be denied some opportunity they might otherwise autonomously take by virtue of some property not related to that particular liberty.

You never really hear major social inequality of height, intelligence, or charisma in the world. — BitconnectCarlos

That's because equality itself isn't a goal, human welfare is. It is considered (with no small amount of empirical support) that wealth equality leads to better welfare. Likewise equality of opportunity in the manner I described above.

The reason we're all appalled at the idea of equality of height or equality of intelligence is that we have no intuitive notion that such a project might further human welfare, nor is there any compelling empirical evidence that would encourage us to reject our intuition on the matter.

'Equality' as a rhetorical cry is just a convenient shorthand, you shouldn't read too much into it.

The reason we're all appalled at the idea of equality of height or equality of intelligence is that we have no intuitive notion that such a project might further human welfare

Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil.

It would level the playing field if all men were the same height. That's where equality of opportunity comes in.

Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil. — BitconnectCarlos

Except there is no magic wand, so equality of height would require some combination of eugenics, surgery, or malnutrition. Sounds rather appalling??

Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil.

It would level the playing field if all men were the same height. That's where equality of opportunity comes in. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly as @ZhouBoTong has already said really. The trouble with thought experiments like this is that they presume our rational thinking methods are un-embodied, something we can employ unconnected from the world we grew up in, and we can't. I think it is quite literally impossible to investigate, by way of thought experiment, how we would feel if we could wave a magic wand to make everyone the same height because we just don't live in a world where any such actions are possible without consequences. Deep in our psyche we expect consequences and recoil from such drastic intervention despite our efforts to restrict our thoughts to the data the thought experiment has provided. We're just not in that much control over what data gets input into our calculation.

Notwithstanding that, I think any push for equality has to be weighed against the consequent loss of diversity, which is something we also find appealing (within parameters). Money doesn't really make people behave in any particular way - rich people are not all of one kind - so wealth equality doesn't seem to reduce diversity at all. Likewise for equality of opportunity (the key being it is only the opportunities which are made equal, not what you do with them). Equality of height, intelligence etc. brings with it an incumbent loss of diversity which has to be weighed heavily against the gains. I think most people find that that loss so massively outweighs any gains the idea becomes repulsive.

Sure, but nature's inequalities manifest themselves in actual, everyday life whether it's a job hunt or promotions or social activity, etc. My main reason for this thread was just to point out that today's left seems to push for equality with, say, A, B, and C but they're not interested in X, Y, and Z which end up favoring/advocating for certain groups and basically ignoring others.

Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table.

We can go back and forth about the means... it's immaterial. Today we're making progress with genetic editing so hopefully we wouldn't need to resort to something as invasive as surgery.

IF the option were to present itself in a non-invasive manner (which could very well not be too far off) should we do it?

This is only the tip of the iceberg: consider further, is it fair that some men have a distribution of muscles that, say, gives them an advantage when it comes to sprinting?

Sure, but nature's inequalities manifest themselves in actual, everyday life whether it's a job hunt or promotions or social activity, etc. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Though nature only affords our societies with some of the differential, or enables/renders possible social costs which leverage distinctions in bodily properties, rather than playing a primary causal role for any of the social costs of having those bodily properties.

My main reason for this thread was just to point out that today's left seems to push for equality with, say, A, B, and C but they're not interested in X, Y, and Z which end up favoring/advocating for certain groups and basically ignoring others.

Having a certain height or skin colour can only be changed through interventions like eugenics; drown all babies that come out at less than a certain size or whose skin colour is not as desired, or otherwise prevent reproduction of those people, maybe kill all people under 1.2 meters tall on their 16th birthday. Things like average height of populations can increase over time through policies (or general collective action) that increase the availability of nutrition.

But, and this is a big but, the risks of differences height or differences in skin colour or disability (within a relevant sub-population) can only be addressed culturally and politically. You can't give poor people who can't walk back their leg function, but you can provide a safety net that allows them a wheelchair and make policies that require access ramps and elevators, and do what you can to aid their social and workplace integration.

It's really coming down to what the possibilities of political action are and which ones are most relevant; race, gender/sex and disability are differences between people which engender risks that both matter a lot and can practically be mitigated or stopped through intervention. Nose size, hand span, and whether you like marmite are not.

Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table. — BitconnectCarlos

No. The goal is absolutely not on the table, as I've just explained above. What evidence have you got in support of such a ludicrous claim?

My "evidence" is the way that the ZBT phrased his response: He said there was no magic wand, and in order to reach the goal we'd have to do X, Y, and Z which are appalling. That's not dismissing the goal; that's dismissing the means.

I wasn't talking about ZBT, specifically. You were the one that raised the issue first, as if it were some kind of reductio argument against the left's pursuit of wealth equality, yet you've completely ignored the argument that equality is not the goal of the left and never has been, so your reductio argument fails. Ignoring arguments which undermine your position may well be a popular move here, but it's not a philosophically effective one.

Well I was responding to ZBT, that's why I linked his name.

I don't mean to make this a left vs. right thing. For some people equality IS a big value, so this point probably isn't aimed at you. I feel like you're viewing this as a person attack.

The issue I'm prodding about - as the discussion has evolved - is equality of opportunity or having a level playing field which I think a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum are cool with. As technology evolves and these issues enter into the realm of possibility, what does everyone think about addressing some of nature's inequalities?

As technology evolves and these issues enter into the realm of possibility, what does everyone think about addressing some of nature's inequalities? — BitconnectCarlos

But I've already explained that in what I thought were fairly straightforward terms. Did you read my initial response to you? Equality is never a goal on its own so it will always be weighed against other goals, one of which is maintaining a degree of diversity.

Every value needs to be weighed against other values. Equality is a value, and it's a value on both the left and the right but to different extents. Equality often takes the form of empowering or leveling the playing field for disadvantaged populations. Personally, I think it's a little cold and unempathetic to basically claim that you'd just like to preserve the struggles of these disadvantaged populations for the sake of "diversity."

People are against race-mixing for the purpose of preserving diversity. Of course that's not a stance that I attribute to you, but you can't just throw out "diversity" or some other competing value when I mention "equality" and deny that we even value equality.

I think it's a little cold and unempathetic to basically claim that you'd just like to preserve the struggles of these disadvantaged populations for the sake of "diversity." — BitconnectCarlos

Who said anything about 'just' preserving the struggles of the disadvantaged for the sake of diversity. That too would have to be weighed against other goals. The point is (again, repeating what I've already written) the ultimate goal is almost universally some variant of human well-being. We preserve diversity becauseof its contribution to well-being, we strive for equality because of its contribution to well-being. If people are struggling we should try to minimise their struggle, but if one method of doing so reduces well-being in some other area then no one but a dogmatic zealot would pursue such a course.

you can't just throw out "diversity" or some other competing value when I mention "equality" and deny that we even value equality. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not denying we value equality, I'm saying that we value it among other values with which it competes and we value it (along with those other principles) entirely because of its supposed contribution to well-being. The moment it no longer contributes to well-being, or conflicts with the ability of other goals to so contribute, we will go no further.

the ultimate goal is almost universally some variant of human well-being.

Why would gene editing resulting in height equality or fixing ugliness be antithetical to human well-being?

It's really coming down to what the possibilities of political action are and which ones are most relevant; race, gender/sex and disability are differences between people which engender risks that both matter a lot and can practically be mitigated or stopped through intervention. Nose size, hand span, and whether you like marmite are not. — fdrake

:up:

Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. I was just explaining why it could be considered "appalling", nothing more.

You are way beyond a strawman here. Why stop at height? True equality would demand equality everywhere. Therefor all 7 billion humans would have to be the exact same person. Same name. Same sex. Same brain. Same job. Same spouse. Same kids. Same bowel movements. Etc. This is all the same type of nonsense as your equal height thing.

To be fair, I can admit there are some jokers out there seeking "total equality", but they are very rare despite what fox news says...I doubt you can find one on this site.

Typically when we talk about equality we're talking about economic equality, which is of course a very real issue. My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here. — BitconnectCarlos

But who wants equality anyway, economic or otherwise?

Apart from equality of education, I , for one, do not.

Who would want to live in a world dominated by mediocrity?

Without inequality there is no motivation and without motivation there is no life.

Perhaps the Pareto distribution (20%/80%) is the natural order of things. So it would be natural. and perhaps unavoidable, that 20% of people will own 80% of the assets etc..

For example, the Pareto distribution would predict that 20% of the members of this forum would produce 80% of the posts, which, I suggest, is a far more accurate prediction than 50% of the members produce 50% of the posts.

Why would gene editing resulting in height equality or fixing ugliness be antithetical to human well-being? — BitconnectCarlos

1. Diversity is good for societies.
2. Massive medical/technological interventions which we think are fine at the time often turn out later to have negative consequences we didn't forsee, they should be used sparing and only when really beneficial (see 1).

Ok, and I could argue that fixing ugliness or equalizing height results in better lives for those people and levels the playing field in a number of areas. I feel we're kind of at a dead end here.

Though nature only affords our societies with some of the differential, or enables/renders possible social costs which leverage distinctions in bodily properties, rather than playing a primary causal role for any of the social costs of having those bodily properties.

I get what you're saying here and it makes sense, but I do think there's a case to be made for say, humans inherently preferring more symmetrical faces.

Having a certain height or skin colour can only be changed through interventions like eugenics; drown all babies that come out at less than a certain size or whose skin colour is not as desired, or otherwise prevent reproduction of those people, maybe kill all people under 1.2 meters tall on their 16th birthday.

We're at a point where we can use genetic editing to eliminate diseases or conditions prenatally in mice, but we're still a ways off from humans. It seems this is going to become a greater issue as technology advances and we already have companies like CRISPR working directly on this genome editing. I'm just saying it's not like the old days where we'd need to use very painful or brutal means to accomplish something like this.

It's really coming down to what the possibilities of political action are and which ones are most relevant; race, gender/sex and disability are differences between people which engender risks that both matter a lot and can practically be mitigated or stopped through intervention.

Sure, but don't you believe the discussion could be broadened? Studies show the CEOs of fortunate 500 companies tend to be something like 3 inches taller than the average man, and that per every inch of height a man has it's an extra $800/year and that's not even digging into the inherent social respect given to height and romantic prospects. I think we can all agree that good-looking people are subject to preferable treatment and we could certain enact policies to at least aim to target this.

I'm just asking here whether you think the discussion ought to be broadened outside of the usual one on race, class, and gender (and sometimes disability which I think doesn't receive the same type of treatment as the others.)